Robert Campo v. U.S. Department of Justice

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 20-2430
___________________________
Robert Campo
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
U.S. Department of Justice
Defendant - Appellee
___________________________
No. 20-2439
___________________________
Ferissa Talley
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
U.S. Department of Labor
Defendant - Appellee
___________________________
No. 20-2494
___________________________
Ferissa Talley
Plaintiff

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Jack R. T. Jordan
Contemnor - Appellant
v.
U.S. Department of Labor
Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: June 17, 2021
Filed: July 30, 2021
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
For quite a while, Jack Jordan has been trying to get various emails that the
United States government has in its possession. Rather than suing on his own behalf,
as he did previously, he now represents others who seek them. Each of the cases
ended at summary judgment, and the district court1 imposed sanctions in one based
on Jordan’s litigation abuses. We affirm.
1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri, and the Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States
District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
First, we agree with the district court that no genuine issue of material fact
remained for trial. See 8th Cir. R. 47B; Townsend v. Murphy, 898 F.3d 780, 783
(8th Cir. 2018) (“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.”). In each case,
the United States fully complied with the Freedom of Information Act, see 5 U.S.C.
§ 552, and in one of them, res judicata provided an alternative basis for summary
judgment.
Second, the district court had good reason to sanction Jordan for his abusive
conduct, including by imposing $1,500 in fines, setting filing restrictions, and
alerting the bar disciplinary authorities to his behavior. The court had the power to
take these actions, see, e.g., Fed R. Civ. P. 11(c); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501
U.S. 32, 43–46, 50 (1991), which did not violate his First or Fifth Amendment rights,
see Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1071–74 (1991); Bill Johnson’s
Rests., Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743 (1983); Coonts v. Potts, 316 F.3d 745, 753
(8th Cir. 2003).
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --