Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Buhendwa v. Regional Transportation District

United States District Court, D. Colorado

January 29, 2018

MADINA BUHENDWA, Plaintiff,
v.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, University Based Pass/CU Student Bus Pass; 15 BOARD OF DIRECTORS, in their official capacity; JAMESA. STADLER, in his official capacity; STEPHEN P. SCHMITZ, in his official capacity; UNKNOWN DRIVER, in his official capacity; BENJAMIN NORMAN, in his official capacity; BILL JAMES; BARBARA DEADWYLER; ANGIE RIVERA-MULPIEDE; JEFF WALKER; CLAUDIA FOLSKA; TOM TOBIASSEN; GARY LASATER; KENT BAYLEY; JUDY LUBOW; LARRY HOY; PAUL DANIEL SOLAMO; LORRAINE ANDERSON; NATALIE MENTEN; BRUCE DOLTY; and CHARLES L. SISK, Defendants.

          ORDER IMPOSING FILING RESTRICTIONS

          RAYMOND P. MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         By Order dated January 18, 2018, the Court determined that, due to her lengthy and abusive filing history, filing restrictions limiting Plaintiff's ability to make pro se filings are appropriate, unless Plaintiff responded by January 29, 2018, showing filing restrictions should not enter. (See ECF No. 32.) The Order set forth Plaintiff's filing history, summarizing the various actions she has filed against Defendants; set forth guidelines as to what Plaintiff must do if she wishes to obtain permission from the court to make pro se filings; and provided Plaintiff with notice and an opportunity to oppose the imposition of filing restrictions.

         On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Object” (the “Objection”) (ECF No. 35), which fails to show that restrictions should not enter. Except for two issues (which the Court addresses below), Plaintiff's Motion generally reargues and raises matters which have already been raised and rejected in this and/or her previous cases, [1] without showing any legal or factual basis that such matters can or should be revisited; and makes conclusory arguments and challenges which are wholly without merit or do not otherwise show restrictions should not be imposed.

         As for the two issues which bear some discussion, they too fail to show restrictions should not enter. First, Plaintiff contends Defendant RTD and the 15 Board of Directors were served by the service of 15 copies of her summons and complaint on the RTD. Plaintiff, however, has not shown this is sufficient service. Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, such service was sufficient, this does not negate the fact that the case was stayed, the Court's finding that all Defendants are subject to dismissal, or the finding that restrictions are warranted. Secondly, although unclear, it appears Plaintiff may be arguing that the document which the Court construed as one response (ECF No. 32, pages 2, 9) contains a motion as a separate document. But, the Court has already found that even if it considered Plaintiff's motions (requests for relief), she failed to show any relief requested should or may be afforded. Thus, this also does not show sanctions are unwarranted. Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff's Objection.[2] For the reasons set forth in the January 18, 2018, Order, as amended by Minute Order of January 29, 2018, except for modifications as to pro se filings in this case, the filing restrictions listed therein are now an Order of the Court limiting Plaintiff Madina Buhendwa's ability to make pro se filings in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in or related to the subject matters in the following District of Colorado cases: (1) 12-cv-01711-PAB-CBS; (2) 14-cv-00720-PAB-CBS; (3) 16-cv-03119-LTB; and (4) 17-cv-02167-RM-MJW. As to pro se filings in this case, the Court lessens the restriction procedure as this Court will evaluate in the first instance the propriety of allowing any pro se filings in this case by Plaintiff.[3]

Accordingly, it is

         ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Object (ECF No. 35) is OVERRULED and DENIED; and it is

         FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant RTD's Motion for Filing Sanctions contained in their “Motion to Dismiss and For Filing Sanctions” (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED; and it is

         FURTHER ORDERED that the following injunction is effective January 30, 2018:

         1. Unless Plaintiff first obtains leave as provided in this paragraph, she is ENJOINED from any further pro se filings in this case relating to any claims or matters which were brought or could have been brought in the following cases: (1) 12-cv-01711-PAB-CBS; (2) 14-cv-00720-PAB-CBS; and (3) 16-cv-03119-LTB. Upon the presentation of any document for filing in this case by Plaintiff, whether by mail or otherwise, the Clerk of the Court shall forward the document to the Court who will make a determination of whether any pro se filing is lacking in merit, duplicative, frivolous, or malicious. The Court will either allow the filing or issue an order of denial;

         2. Unless Plaintiff first obtains leave as provided below, she is FURTHER ENJOINED from bringing any pro se litigation in this District against any person (natural or artificial) and/or their attorneys relating to any claims or matters which were brought or could have been brought in the following four cases: (1) 12-cv-01711-PAB-CBS; (2) 14-cv-00720-PAB-CBS; (3) 16-cv-03119-LTB; and (4) 17-cv-02167-RM-MJW.

         3. If Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, wishes to file a new lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, she shall file a petition with the Clerk of the Court requesting leave to file a complaint or other pleading that includes:

         A. A copy of the Court's January 18, 2018, Order, this Order, and any subsequent Order related to filing restrictions issued by this Court in this case;

         B. A copy of the proposed complaint or pleading;

         C. A list of all other lawsuits or other matters then pending or previously filed in the District of Colorado that involve the same or similar claims or parties as those in the following actions: (1) 12-cv-01711-PAB-CBS; (2) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.