UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

PAUL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY CHARLES MADDEN; TAMARA S. PENINGTON CARMICHAEL; NANCY PIFER, also known as Nancy Berry; STEVEN R. POLIDORI; HELEN R. STONE; HAYDEN HOLL THOMPSON; SHERYL RAE THOMPSON; STEPHEN M. LEE; F.H.T., INC., also known as Hastings Pork Corporation, a Nebraska corporation; GREENWOOD PLAZA (DENVER) ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHP, a Colorado Limited partnership; MABEL T. ERICKSON IRREVOCABLE TRUST, with Hayden Thompson as its sole beneficiary; ALL PERSONS CLAIMING ANY INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN,

Defendants-Appellees.	No. 00-1330

(D.C. No. 00-S-582)

(Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

Paul Williams brought this pro se action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against numerous defendants. The district court dismissed the action as frivolous, pointing out that Mr. Williams has previously brought virtually identical claims unsuccessfully three times.1 Mr. Williams appeals and we affirm.

The events underlying this lawsuit occurred over ten years ago.2 As described by the district court:

All of Mr. Williams' claims in this action arise out of a series of events that began in 1979. Mr. Williams alleges that he was involved in various real estate transactions that ultimately led to his convictions in Colorado state court for criminal impersonation and theft. Mr. Williams contends that the alleged victim of the criminal impersonation actually was murdered and that one of the defendants assumed the victim's identity in order to secure Plaintiff's conviction in that case. He maintains that in both state court criminal cases a group of public and private individuals conspired to deprive him of fair trials by perjuring themselves and by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence.

Rec., vol. I, doc. 20 at 2. One of Mr. Williams' previous attempts to bring this claim in federal district court was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal.3 See Williams v. Walters, No. 90-1317, 1991 WL 47141 (10th Cir. Mar. 21, 1991). In affirming the dismissal, we noted that Mr. Williams "earlier brought two similar lawsuits against many of the same defendants. The district court dismissed without prejudice those complaints pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiffs refiled essentially the same lawsuit three times, apparently electing to stand on their complaint." Id. at **2 n.1.

The last attempt by Mr. Williams to bring a virtually identical claim against most of the defendants named here was filed when the immediately preceding claim was still pending appeal. The district court dismissed that claim with prejudice. Williams v. Larson, No., 91-Z-178 (D. Colo. Oct. 7, 1991), appeal dismissed, No. 91-1365 (10th Cir. Jan. 13, 1992).

We have carefully reviewed the history of Mr. Williams' attempts to litigate his claims and the pleadings he has filed in this action. We are convinced that the district court correctly characterized the instant proceeding as repetitive, vexatious and frivolous. Indeed, the facts here are very similar to those in Fitzgerald, 221 F.3d 362, in which the court deemed frivolous a lawsuit reasserting claims that had already been dismissed twice.

Accordingly, the order of dismissal is AFFIRMED.4

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Circuit Judge