Robert E. Cotner, and Keith Brickford, Myron Lane, Clinton Clark, Milton McGugin Terry Jett, Randy Leonard Smith, Martih Reyes, Glenn Moffit, David Gambler, David Hogan, Timothy Deeter, Daryl Williams, Randie Haynes, Bo Richards, Eljuan Heath, Steve Owen, Jesse Padgett, Lawrence Moseley v. Doug Nichols
Docket: 95-5087
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; October 30, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
Unpublished opinions may be cited if they have persuasive value on a material issue, with a copy attached to the citing document or provided to the Court and all parties. In the case Robert E. Cotner v. Doug Nichols, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed an appeal from Cotner, a prisoner at the Lexington Correctional Center, who filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding conditions at Creek County Jail. The district court dismissed his claim as frivolous and proposed filing restrictions due to a lengthy history of vexatious litigation. Cotner did not appeal the dismissal in a timely manner, having filed his notice of appeal over six months late, which the court refused to consider. However, the court did address the imposition of filing restrictions, affirming the district court's decision. The court found that the district court had adequately evaluated Cotner's litigation history and provided proper notice and an opportunity to respond, ensuring that the restrictions would still allow him access to the court system. The court affirms the decision and mandates immediate issuance of the order and judgment, which is not considered binding precedent except in cases of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Citation of this order is generally disfavored but permitted under the court's General Order dated November 29, 1993. Mr. Cotner's motion to strike the appellee's brief is denied as it lacks merit. The district court has imposed restrictions on Mr. Cotner's ability to file lawsuits, allowing him to do so only when represented by a licensed attorney or upon obtaining permission to proceed pro se. To proceed pro se, Mr. Cotner must submit a detailed motion to the clerk, listing all lawsuits filed, any filing restrictions, and include a notarized affidavit affirming the issues and certifying good faith. The chief judge will decide on the motion's approval. Mr. Cotner has filed at least forty-four lawsuits over the past two decades, often involving frivolous motions and procedural violations. The court also noted that his settlement offers have been viewed as vexatious, although such offers should be evaluated cautiously regarding judicial abuse. No ruling is made on this aspect in the current case.