Nelson v. Gallagher, No. 20-1426 (10th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ BRETT ANDREW: HOUSE OF NELSON, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit January 26, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 20-1423 (D.C. No. 1:20-CV-03506-CMA) (D. Colo.) v. LEWIS T. BABCOCK; GORDON P. GALLAGHER, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ BRETT ANDREW NELSON, House of Nelson, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GORDON GALLAGHER; LEWIS T. BABCOCK, No. 20-1426 (D.C. No. 1:20-CV-03424-CMA) (D. Colo.) Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. _________________________________ Plaintiff filed two suits against United States District Judge Lewis T. Babcock and United States Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher, both of the District of Colorado, taking issue with their disposition of two prior cases he filed in that district. Appeal No. 20-1423 and its underlying district court case challenge the disposition of Nelson v. Talbot, No. 20-cv-1053-LTB-GPG (D. Colo. May 7, 2020), aff’d, No. 20-1424 (10th Cir. Jan. 13, 2021). Appeal No. 20-1426 and its underlying district court case challenge the disposition of Nelson v. Walzl, No. 20-cv-1012LTB-GPG (D. Colo. May 7, 2020), aff’d, No. 20-1180 (10th Cir. Oct. 9, 2020). Specifically, Plaintiff challenges Judge Gallagher’s recommendations that the prior cases be dismissed and Judge Babcock’s orders adopting those recommendations. Pursuant to its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court sua sponte dismissed both of Plaintiff’s complaints as frivolous, malicious, and abusive. Frivolous because the judges possessed absolute immunity from suit. And malicious and abusive because the district court had advised Plaintiff on numerous occasions that he may not sue judges for damages just because he disagrees with their orders or rulings. The district court granted Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis in both cases, but certified that any appeals would not be taken in good faith and therefore preemptively denied any motion for IFP status on appeal. Finally, the district court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why it should not impose filing restrictions on him. Plaintiff failed to respond and thus the court imposed the proposed filing restrictions. 2 Judges enjoy absolute immunity from suit for actions taken in their judicial capacity except where they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11–12 (1991). We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the judges acted within their jurisdiction when they dismissed Plaintiff’s prior cases and therefore absolute immunity applies. We further agree that Plaintiff’s insistence on filing these actions, despite repeated warnings that he may not sue judges because he disagrees with their rulings, warrants a finding that the suits are malicious and abusive. Finally, “[f]ederal courts have the inherent power to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions in appropriate circumstances.” Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1077 (10th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has identified no error in the district court’s imposition of filing restrictions. Where the district court accurately analyzes an issue, we see no useful purpose in writing at length. We have thoroughly reviewed the records and Plaintiff’s appellate briefs and discern no reversible error. Therefore, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM in both cases for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s orders. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. Entered for the Court Joel M. Carson III 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.
