Namoko vs. Miller, No. 07-1227 (10th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS August 23, 2007 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court ISSIA K A I. N A MO K O , Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nos. 07-1227, 07-1228 (D. Colorado) H O N O RA BLE WA L KER D. M ILLER; HO NO RA BLE M ICH AEL E. H EG ARTY , (D.C. Nos. 07-CV-00928-ZLW 07-CV-00927-ZLW ) Defendants-Appellees. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * Before H E N RY, T YM KOV IC H, and HO LM ES, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2); 10 TH C IR . R. 34.1(G). Issiaka Namoko, appearing pro se as he did in the district court, appeals from the district court s dismissal of his complaints against Judge W alker M iller * This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel.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. and M agistrate Judge M ichael Hegarty for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. M r. Namoko also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). M r. Namoko s complaint arose from two prior employment discrimination cases he filed in the District of Colorado. See Nam oko v. M ilgard M fg., Inc., No. 06-cv-02031-W DM -M EH (D. Colo. Apr. 6, 2007); Namoko v. Cognisa Sec., Inc., No. 05-cv-00763-W DM -M EH (D. Colo. filed Apr. 26, 2005). In M ilgard M anufacturing, Judge M iller adopted M agistrate Judge H egarty s recommendation that M r. Namoko s complaint be dismissed as time-barred and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. That case is currently on appeal before this court, No. 07-1171. In Cognisa Security, Judge M iller again adopted M agistrate Judge Hegarty s recommendation, this time to enforce the settlement agreement entered into by the parties. M r. Namoko s appeal in that case has been terminated, apparently for procedural defects. See Nos. 07-1101, -1296. In this action, M r. Namoko filed two Title VII complaints alleging bias, discrimination, and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a on the part of Judge M iller and M agistrate Judge Hegarty in the handling of the above employment actions. Although M r. Namoko seeks relief under Title VII, he has failed to claim that he was the victim of an adverse employment action taken by either Judge M iller or M agistrate Judge Hegarty. As the district court observed, it is not empow ered to review the orders filed in M r. Namoko s employment discrimination cases because M r. Namoko s remedy for his dissatisfaction with -2- the previous Title VII rulings is an appeal to this court, which M r. Namoko has filed. Thus, the district court s sua sponte determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over M r. Namoko s Title VII suits under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) w as correct. Accordingly, we A FFIRM the district court s dismissal of M r. Namoko s complaints and DEN Y his motion to proceed IFP. Entered for the Court, Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.