Johnson v. Cowley
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision. The 22 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Click-To-Call Technologies, Lp v. Ingenio, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)
- Anant Kumar Tripati v. William C. Beaman (10th Cir. 1989)
- Rued v. Hudson (D. Minn. 2025)
- In re: Gardner (10th Cir. 2024)
- Mayes v. Department of Corrections (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 2022)
- Fredin v. Middlecamp (D. Minn. 2020)
- Fredin v. Kreil (D. Minn. 2020)
- Fredin v. Miller (D. Minn. 2020)
- Mayes v. Dowling (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 2020)
- Holt v. State (Kan. 2010)
- Xiangyuan Zhu v. St. Francis Health Center (District Court, D. Kansas 2006)
- Olsen v. State of New Mexico (10th Cir. 2005)
- State Ex Rel. Stovall v. Lynn (Kan. Ct. App. 1999)
- Schlicher v. Thomas (10th Cir. 1997)
- Cauthon v. Rogers (10th Cir. 1997)
- Day v. Cody (10th Cir. 1996)
- In re Rainsford J. Winslow and Winifred W. Winslow, Debtors. Rainsford J. Winslow and Winifred W. Winslow v. C. Gail Hunter (10th Cir. 1994)
- Werner v. The State Of Utah (10th Cir. 1994)
- Jerry Young A/K/A Ramadan v. Donald Selsky, P. Orengo, R. Althouse, R.J. Cunningham, D. Schaller, L. Jewett (2d Cir. 1994)
- Werner v. Utah (10th Cir. 1994)
- In re Anthony R. Martin-Trigona, Movant. In re George Sassower, Movant (2d Cir. 1993)
- Isa Abdullah Ramadan Shabazz v. Stephen Kaiser, Attorney General (10th Cir. 1991)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
ORDER
The underlying pleadings are vague, rambling, replete with legalistic jargon, and characteristic of numerous papers filed previously by petitioner in other cases. Since 1980, petitioner has commenced fifty-four cases in the court’s original jurisdiction, in addition to some thirty-three appeals he has filed (See Appendix A).
The subject matter of these cases is conspicuously inappropriate for this court’s original jurisdiction. For that reason they are frivolous. Those who invoke the court’s jurisdiction are charged with both the knowledge of the limits of that jurisdiction and the rules of procedure. We conclude that petitioner has long engaged in a pattern of litigation activity which is manifestly abusive. Appropriate restriction on a litigant’s ability to commence abusive litigation in forma pauperis is within the inherent powers of the court. In re McDonald, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989); Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900 (10th Cir. 1986).
Because petitioner has repeatedly abused the original jurisdiction of this court, we direct the clerk not to accept further petitions from petitioner for extraordinary writs which allege only grievances against prison officials unless the required docketing fee is paid and all other rules of procedure have been satisfied.
It is further ordered that petitioner will be allowed fifteen days from the date of this order to pay the required filing fee in each of the above cases. If petitioner fails to pay the required filing fee within the time allowed, these cases will be dismissed without further notice.
APPENDIX A
[[Image here]]
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.