ORDER IMPOSING FILING RESTRICTIONS ON KAY SIEVERDING AND DAVID SIEVERDING
This matter came before the Court on Newspaper Defendants' Motion for Further Relief Based Upon New Contempt By Kay Sieverding (Doc. No. 704), and following a Show Cause Hearing on January 4, 2006 and the Court's review of the extensive record in this case and the various other civil actions filed by the plaintiffs since this Court's March 19, 2004 order and judgment, the Court makes the following findings, conclusions and orders, hereby entering additional filing restrictions against Kay Sieverding and David Sieverding.
This Court entered an order and judgment on March 19, 2004 finding the plaintiffs' claims to be groundless and frivolous, and the plaintiffs' arguments to be prolix, unorganized, incomprehensible, and legally twisted. The Court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations to dismiss all the plaintiffs' claims and the more than one hundred motions still pending at the conclusion of the case, and to impose a filing restriction against the plaintiffs' further pro se litigation. That filing restriction read as follows:
Plaintiffs are hereby enjoined and prohibited from commencing litigation in this or any other court based on the series of transactions described in this case, unless they are represented by counsel. ("Order Accepting Magistrate Judge's Recommendation," entered Mar. 19, 2004, Doc. No. 455.) The Court's order and judgment was made final under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(2) on March 22, 2004. The plaintiffs appealed this judgment, and on April 22, 2005, in an unpublished order and judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed both this Court's judgment and the filing restriction set out above.
Since this Court's judgment on March 19, 2004, both Kay Sieverding and David Sieverding have continued to engage in pro se civil litigation against various of the defendants in this case, those defendants' attorneys, as well as other parties, all in violation of the Court's filing restriction, and always with claims that are inherently frivolous.
At the Court's first Show Cause Hearing on September 2, 2005, this Court found that David and Kay Sieverding had violated the Court's March 19, 2004 filing restriction by filing the following civil actions as pro se litigants:
· David Sieverding, et al. v. Faegre & Benson, LLP, et al., U.S.District Court for the District of Minnesota, Case No. 04-4317 JRT/FLN, filed Oct. 4, 2004;
· David Sieverding, et al. v. Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Ass'n, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Case No. 05-02 DWF/JSM, filed Jan. 2, 2005;
· David Sieverding, et al. v. American Bar Ass'n, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Illinois, Case No. 05-cv-3766, filed June 23, 2005;
· David Sieverding, et al. v. American Bar Ass'n, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 05-cv-1283, filed June 27, 2005;
· David Sieverding, et al. v. Faegre & Benson, LLP, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Case No. 05-2824, filed June 29, 2005;
· David Sieverding, et al. v. State of Colorado, Colorado District Court -- Denver County District Court, Case No. 2005-cv-5485, filed July 13, 2005; and,
· David Sieverding, et al. v. American Bar Ass'n., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 05-cv-1672, filed Aug. 22, 2005.
In addition to these post-judgment filings, the instant civil action here in Colorado was only the latest in a series of lawsuits previously filed by the plaintiffs. As indicated in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, entered October 14, 2003, which this Court adopted on March 19, 2004, the plaintiffs previously sought to litigate most of the same issues raised in this case through multiple prior lawsuits ...