Sir Arthur Heim, etc. v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 13-1279 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. District court did not err in denying two post-judgment motions or in restricting plaintiff from making any additional post-judgment filings; nor did the court err in requiring plaintiff to either pay the appellate filing fees or file an in forma pauperis motion.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1279 ___________________________ Sir Arthur Heim for Citizens Suit, and United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder; Nebraska Attorney General John Brunning; Colorado Attorney General John Sutheral; Wyoming Attorney General Greg Philips; IRS; United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: July 3, 2013 Filed: July 22, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Arthur Heim appeals after the district court1 dismissed his complaint and denied his numerous post-judgment motions. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that we have jurisdiction to review only the district court s orders which (1) denied two post-judgment motions and restricted Heim from filing additional post-judgment motions, and (2) required him to pay the appellate filing fee or to file an in forma pauperis motion. See Dieser v. Cont l Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional). We further conclude that neither of those two orders is subject to reversal. See In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liab. Litig., 496 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir. 2007) (denial of post-judgment motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion); In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (court has discretion to place reasonable restrictions on litigant who files non-meritorious actions for obviously malicious purposes and who generally abuses judicial process); see also Fed. R. App. P. 3(e) (upon filing of notice of appeal, appellant must pay district clerk all required fees). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny all of Heim s pending motions. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2-
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.
