Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
William D. Peterson, II v. Michael D. Zimmerman, Supreme Court Judge Richard G. Howe, Supreme Court Judge Geoffrey J. Butler, Clerk Judith M. Billings, Utah Court of Appeals Judge Russell W. Bench, Utah Court of Appeals Judge Michael J. Wilkins, Utah Court of Appeals Judge Marilyn M. Branch, Clerk Michael O. Leavitt, Governor
Citations: 132 F.3d 43; 1997 WL 785500; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 39991Docket: 97-4145
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; December 21, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
William D. Peterson, II, the plaintiff-appellant, filed an appeal against multiple defendants, including judges from the Utah Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, court clerks, and the Governor of Utah, following the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action by the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The district court, presided over by Judge J. Thomas Greene, dismissed Peterson's complaint on August 8, 1997, for failure to state a claim, deeming it meritless and imposing a $500 sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Peterson's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed Peterson's filings and found them lacking in merit, affirming the district court's dismissal and sanctions. The appellate court deemed the initial $500 sanction insufficient and imposed an additional sanction of $500 payable to the Clerk of the Court. Peterson was ordered to show cause within ten days why this new sanction should not be enforced; failure to adequately respond would result in the imposition of the sanction. The court also mandated that any future filings by Peterson regarding similar claims would be returned unless all outstanding dues to the court were paid in full. The decision was issued unanimously without oral argument and noted that the order and judgment are not binding precedent except under specific legal doctrines. The court emphasized its general disfavor for citing unpublished opinions but acknowledged that such opinions could be cited under certain conditions. Peterson's repeated litigation efforts have engaged numerous judges and court personnel, highlighting the frivolous nature of his claims regarding alleged constitutional violations.