Filed: May 05, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 5, 2015 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court ANTHONY C. KENNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 15-6021 v. (D.C. No. 5:14-CV-00463-M) (W.D. Okla.) STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Defendant - Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. After Anthony Kenney filed a drove of frivolous lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, that court
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 5, 2015 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court ANTHONY C. KENNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 15-6021 v. (D.C. No. 5:14-CV-00463-M) (W.D. Okla.) STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Defendant - Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. After Anthony Kenney filed a drove of frivolous lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, that court ..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
May 5, 2015
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ANTHONY C. KENNEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 15-6021
v. (D.C. No. 5:14-CV-00463-M)
(W.D. Okla.)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
After Anthony Kenney filed a drove of frivolous lawsuits in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, that court imposed
certain restrictions on his ability to bring additional actions before it. In an
apparent attempt to circumvent those restrictions, Mr. Kenney set his sights on a
new jurisdiction and filed this suit in the neighboring Western District. After a
*
After examining Mr. Kenney’s brief and the appellate record, this panel
has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 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judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,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.
magistrate judge granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the district
court dismissed Mr. Kenney’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which
requires courts to dismiss in forma pauperis actions that “fail[] to state a claim on
which relief may be granted.”
Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
We discern no error in that disposition and so we affirm the district court’s
judgment. Though Mr. Kenney’s complaint appears to allege that Oklahoma
failed to pay him workers’ compensation benefits, it fails to set forth factual
allegations from which we might infer some plausible basis for relief. Mr.
Kenney, who has brought more than twenty appeals before this court, should be
on notice too that any future frivolous, malicious, or abusive filings will put him
at the risk of sanctions, including possible filing restrictions in this court. See
Ford v. Pryor,
552 F.3d 1174, 1181 (10th Cir. 2008) (noting our inherent
authority to impose “comprehensive filing restrictions on litigants who have
repeatedly abused the appellate process”).
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-2-