Robert Campo v. U.S. DOJ, No. 20-2430 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case. The United States fully complied with the Freedom of Information Act, and the district court did not err in granting the United States summary judgment; nor did the court err in imposing a sanctions against plaintiff for his abusive conduct in the cases.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2430 ___________________________ Robert Campo Plaintiff - Appellant v. U.S. Department of Justice Defendant - Appellee ___________________________ No. 20-2439 ___________________________ Ferissa Talley Plaintiff - Appellant v. U.S. Department of Labor Defendant - Appellee ___________________________ No. 20-2494 ___________________________ Ferissa Talley Plaintiff Jack R. T. Jordan Contemnor - Appellant v. U.S. Department of Labor Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: June 17, 2021 Filed: July 30, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. For quite a while, Jack Jordan has been trying to get various emails that the United States government has in its possession. Rather than suing on his own behalf, as he did previously, he now represents others who seek them. Each of the cases ended at summary judgment, and the district court1 imposed sanctions in one based on Jordan’s litigation abuses. We affirm. 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, and the Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- First, we agree with the district court that no genuine issue of material fact remained for trial. See 8th Cir. R. 47B; Townsend v. Murphy, 898 F.3d 780, 783 (8th Cir. 2018) (“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.”). In each case, the United States fully complied with the Freedom of Information Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 552, and in one of them, res judicata provided an alternative basis for summary judgment. Second, the district court had good reason to sanction Jordan for his abusive conduct, including by imposing $1,500 in fines, setting filing restrictions, and alerting the bar disciplinary authorities to his behavior. The court had the power to take these actions, see, e.g., Fed R. Civ. P. 11(c); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43–46, 50 (1991), which did not violate his First or Fifth Amendment rights, see Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1071–74 (1991); Bill Johnson’s Rests., Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743 (1983); Coonts v. Potts, 316 F.3d 745, 753 (8th Cir. 2003). ______________________________ -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.
