Case 1:18-mc-00004 Document 9 Filed 02/14/18 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE MATTER OF:
RESTRICTED FILER PROCEDURE 18-MC-00004-09
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
This Administrative Order supersedes prior district court orders that direct the Clerk’s
Office not to file a new lawsuit by a restricted filer, orders the Clerk’s Office to open a civil case
when a restricted filer seeks to initiate a new case, and orders the Clerk’s Office to accept
pleadings from restricted filers for filing into an existing case.
A “restricted filer” is an individual who previously filed a case with the District of New
Mexico and for whom a judge ordered that any future filings by the individual be restricted
regarding either what documents the individual is permitted to file in a specific case, or what
steps the individual must follow before he or she may initiate a new case or new filing within the
District of New Mexico.
The Tenth Circuit allows the District Court to impose filing restrictions stating:
“[E]ven onerous conditions” may be imposed upon a litigant as long as they are
designed to assist the district court in curbing the particular abusive behavior
involved. The conditions cannot be so burdensome, however, as to deny a
litigant meaningful access to the courts. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97
S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977).
Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). Court orders of
restriction directing the Clerk not to accept future lawsuits from restricted filers, and the current
restricted filer procedure of not opening a new civil case, appear to run afoul of the Tenth
Circuit’s limitation on filing restrictions quoted above. See Cook v. Baca, Doc. 186-1 at 18-20,
No. 10cv1173 (D.N.M. October 2, 2015) (Tenth Circuit Order modifying filing restrictions that
Case 1:18-mc-00004 Document 9 Filed 02/14/18 Page 2 of 3
entailed an outright bar on pro se litigation against certain defendants unlimited by subject
matter); In re Billy L. Edwards, Doc. 18 at 5, No. 15cv631 (D.N.M. September 22, 2015)
(finding that the Court’s current procedure effectively denies some restricted filers meaningful
access to appellate review because, being not well versed in the law, they may not realize that
they can petition the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus).
To avoid denying restricted filers meaningful access to the Courts, the Court will adopt a
procedure similar to that of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.1 The Clerk’s Office must
open a new civil case when a restricted filer wishes to initiate a new case, including those
1
The docket in Cotner v. McCollum, No. 14-6127, illustrates the procedure used by the Tenth
Circuit for Mr. Cotner, who is a restricted filer. That procedure is summarized as follows:
6/13/14 Notice of Appeal filed. 10th Cir. opens appellate case.
6/16/14 Clerk enters order sua sponte instructing Cotner to (i) pay filing fee in full or
show why the three-strikes provision of the IFP statute does not apply, AND (ii)
cause a licensed attorney to enter an appearance or file a petition to proceed pro
se, as described in the Order and Judgment setting forth filing restrictions. See
Cotner v. Boone, No. 01-7096, 48 Fed.Appx. 287, 2002 WL 31045393 (10th Cir.
Sept. 13, 2002); Cotner v. Boone, No. 01-7096 (10th Cir. Oct. 4, 2002) (Order
denying Cotner’s motion/objection to the Order and Judgment setting forth filing
restrictions). Order gives notice that case will be dismissed if Cotner does not
timely comply with both requirements.
6/30/14 Cotner files petition to proceed pro se.
7/11/14 Chief Circuit Judge files (docket says filed by Chief Circuit Judge, signature line
says "entered for the court" by the Clerk, signed by counsel to the Clerk) order
denying petition to proceed pro se and instructs Cotner to, within 21 days, (i)
cause a licensed attorney to enter an appearance on Cotner's behalf, and (ii) pay
the full $505.00 filing fee. The order states that unless both conditions are
satisfied within the 21 days, the matter will be dismissed without further notice
pursuant to Tenth Circuit Rule 42.1 [dismissal for failure to prosecute].
Cotner does not respond to the 7/11/14 Order.
8/5/14 Order by Clerk dismissing case for lack of prosecution.
Case 1:18-mc-00004 Document 9 Filed 02/14/18 Page 3 of 3
restricted filers whom the Court has previously ordered may not initiate new cases. When
opening the new case, the Clerk’s Office will add a staff note to the docket to notify the judges
assigned to the case that the litigant is a restricted filer. The staff note will reference this Order
and the district court Order imposing filing restrictions. The Clerk’s Office will file the materials
in the newly opened case for review by the judges assigned to that case.
A similar procedure will be followed for litigants who have been restricted from filing in
their existing cases. However, the Clerk’s Office will accept for filing into existing cases ONLY
the following pleadings: (i) an entry of appearance of a licensed attorney on behalf of the
restricted filer; (ii) a petition to proceed pro se; and (iii) a notice of appeal. Any other papers
submitted not meeting this specific criteria will not be filed nor will they be returned to the
litigant.
DONE at Albuquerque this 14th day of February, 2018.
FOR THE COURT:
______________________________________
WILLIAM P. JOHNSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
District Version v6.2.1 LIVE DB https://ecf.nmd.circ10.dcn/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?103349808282965
Notices
1:18-mc-00004 Administrative Orders
U.S. District Court
District of New Mexico - Version 6.2.1
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 2/14/2018 at 1:28 PM MST and filed on 2/14/2018
Case Name: Administrative Orders
Case Number: 1:18-mc-00004
Filer:
Document Number: 9
Docket Text:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER: In the Matter of Restricted Filer Procedure. (kmk)
1:18-mc-00004 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
1:18-mc-00004 Notice has been delivered by fax to:
1:18-mc-00004 Notice has been delivered by USPS to:
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1167529506 [Date=2/14/2018] [FileNumber=8934037-0
] [816df80db002ca2fc387ef1979b0a81da1f24f72a3f54b983f35c563c2bc4ab5994
ee87d15656071638c8e4bd5355decf481695674abdd778712aa8f2b20602d]]
1 of 1 2/14/2018 1:28 PM
