Jabari J. Johnson v. Lambkins

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
JABARI J. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LAMBKINS; PEEK; COMBEE;
CORTEZ; AYALA; MARTINEZ;
NERTON; KILPOLITES; DURAN;
MORONES; DETRANCESCO; FOX;
MARTIN; HETWIG; HOFFMAN;
HUNT; GALINA; GILLIS; VALLE;
ROOT; JAMES; WILL; ROYCE;
CRAWFORD, Chaplain; MCALLISTER;
BAINBRIDGE; MOORE; DEAN
WILLIAMS; LITTLE; FERGESEN;
SMITH; CHRISTOPHER; MARK
ANDREWS; HEADLEY; BOSWICK;
ALLENHAMMER,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 21-1340
(D.C. No. 1:21-CV-02467-LTB)
(D. Colo.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
* After examining appellant=s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App.
P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
November 23, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-1340 Document: 010110609093 Date Filed: 11/23/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before MORITZ, BALDOCK and EID, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Jabari Jones is an avid litigant before the courts of our Circuit. Because of
his previous efforts, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado imposed
filing restrictions on Plaintiff to prevent him from pursuing “groundless and vexatious
litigation.” See Johnson v. Hawkins, No. 19-cv-03730-LTB, ECF No. 3, at 9, 10–11 (D.
Colo. Mar. 4, 2020). We followed the district court’s lead and also imposed filing
restrictions on Plaintiff. See Johnson v. Johnson, No. 21-1152, 2021 WL 4595172 (10th
Cir. Oct. 6, 2021). Our restrictions, however, only went into effect on November 5, 2021
and have no impact on this appeal. See id.
Plaintiff’s current suit is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleges numerous
violations relating to prison conditions and ADA compliance. The district court dismissed
Plaintiff’s complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE because he failed to comply with the
filing restrictions imposed upon him. Unsatisfied, Plaintiff appealed. We exercise
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and for substantially the reasons stated in the district
court’s Order, we affirm the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim.
Appellate Case: 21-1340 Document: 010110609093 Date Filed: 11/23/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Additionally, we consider Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We
grant Plaintiff’s motion but caution him that he is responsible to continue making payments
towards the filing fee until it is paid in full.
AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 21-1340 Document: 010110609093 Date Filed: 11/23/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --