| Keyword |
Case |
Docket |
Date: Filed /
Added |
(11530 bytes)
(6618 bytes)
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
| MARY ELIZABETH SEVERANCE, | |
| v. | No. 97-1278 |
| GALE NORTON, Attorney General; MARLENE LANGFIELD; GARY CLYMAN; ELIZABETH A. WEISPHAUL; CRISTINA VALENCIA; DAVID BROUGHAM; DAVID H. ZOOK; WILLIAM DAVID LYTLE; JOHN J. KEILBACH; ROBERT H. RAWLINGS; DANIEL L. CORSENTINO; CHIP DE LUCA; CONNIE L. PETERSON; PETER W. BOOTH; ALEX MARTINEZ; WILLIAM F. DOWNING; O. EDWARD SCHLATTER, Magistrate Judge; DAVID A. COLE; EUGENE T. HALAAS; JOHN R. TRACEY; CHRIS WOODKA; JOHN W. ANDERSON; GUS SANDSTROM; JOHN A. SUTHERS; JEANIE M. SMITH; SANDRA WELLS; AURELIO SISNEROS; AARON T. WAGNER; EDWARD JONES, registered agent of R.J. Locksmith; All Does 1 to 99, |
Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.(**)
Plaintiff Mary Elizabeth Severance, appearing pro se as a self-proclaimed sovereign citizen, filed this civil rights action in the district court alleging numerous Defendants, including judges, law enforcement officials, and government attorneys, violated her constitutional rights. The district court entered an order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint as violative of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and as barred by the doctrines of judicial immunity, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The district court's order also prohibited Plaintiff from filing any complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado without written leave of court unless represented by counsel. Plaintiff appeals the district court's order. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We have reviewed the parties' briefs, pleadings, motions, and the entire record before us, and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and barring her from future filings.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court,
Per Curiam
*. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**. After examining the briefs and 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(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
| Keyword |
Case |
Docket |
Date: Filed /
Added |
(11530 bytes)
(6618 bytes)