Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dennis Lee Kucera v. Everett O. Inbody, 99-3420 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 99-3420 Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 26, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-3420 _ Dennis Lee Kucera, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Everett O. Inbody; Alan G. Gless; * District Court for the District United Nebraska Bank; Jeff Johnson; * of Nebraska. Thomas M. Maul; James Papik: Eugene * G. Schumacher; Ernest J. Osantowski; * [UNPUBLISHED] Francis E. Osantowski; Leo J. * Osantowski; Cark K. Hart, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: April 7, 2000 Filed: April 26, 2000 _ Before LOKEN, FAGG,
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 99-3420 ___________ Dennis Lee Kucera, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Everett O. Inbody; Alan G. Gless; * District Court for the District United Nebraska Bank; Jeff Johnson; * of Nebraska. Thomas M. Maul; James Papik: Eugene * G. Schumacher; Ernest J. Osantowski; * [UNPUBLISHED] Francis E. Osantowski; Leo J. * Osantowski; Cark K. Hart, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: April 7, 2000 Filed: April 26, 2000 ___________ Before LOKEN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Dennis Lee Kucera appeals the district court's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 order sanctioning Kucera $1,000 for filing harassing litigation. This case is the fourth in a chain of similar lawsuits brought by Kucera against the same parties. In each case, the district court dismissed Kucera's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state meritorious claims. Having admonished Kucera in the earlier cases that he could be sanctioned if he continued to file meritless lawsuits, the district court ordered a $1,000 sanction in this case. Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to sanction Kucera for bringing oppressive litigation. Having satisfied ourselves that the district court responded appropriately to Kucera's relentless pursuit of frivolous litigation and that no useful purpose will be served by an extended opinion, we affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer