Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Witt v. State of Colorado, et al.
Eric Witt appealed the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice a complaint in which he sought various forms of relief from foreclosure and eviction proceedings. Finding no error in the district court’s forewarned decision to dismiss this action as a sanction for repetitive and duplicative filings, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
In August 2022, Witt filed a complaint in federal district court seeking to challenge state-court foreclosure proceedings. Witt also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, which the district court denied because Witt failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the opinion noted. Witt then moved for a temporary restraining order three more times, and on each occasion, the district court denied his request. In its order denying Witt’s third and fourth temporary restraining order requests, the district court noted Witt’s repeated temporary restraining order “filings border[ed] on frivolous.” And it warned Witt if he were to file a fifth repetitive temporary restraining order motion, it would “regard that motion as frivolous” and “consider other sanctions as appropriate.”
So when Witt filed a fifth temporary restraining order motion — this one styled as a habeas petition but seeking a temporary restraining order to enjoin the state-court foreclosure proceedings — the district court denied it and deemed it frivolous. It also specifically cautioned Witt if he filed another frivolous and repetitive motion, it would be dismissed with prejudice.
Witt filed another set of motions seeking a temporary restraining order and other related forms of injunctive relief; he also argued the district court erred in treating his fifth temporary restraining order motion as frivolous. But the district court, as it had warned, determined this sixth round of filings was frivolous, denied each motion and then dismissed Witt’s complaint in its entirety as a sanction.
Witt appealed. He suggested he filed multiple motions in response to the district court’s directions, so those filings should “have been interpreted as a learning process for a pro se litigant.”
The 10th Circuit disagreed with Witt. It determined none of the district court’s orders invited Witt to file additional motions. Rather, the opinion noted, the orders simply stated the reasons for denying the motion at hand.
The appeals court also found that given Witt’s prior TRO motions sought the same relief (and that Witt is not in custody, as is required for habeas motions), the district court didn’t abuse its discretion in concluding that Witt’s fifth motion was frivolous.
The 10th Circuit affirmed and granted Witt’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.