Precedents Cited and Their Role

• United States v. Nicholson, 983 F.2d 983, 988 (10th Cir. 1993): Cited for the proposition that district court decisions involving control of the docket and parties are reviewed for abuse of discretion. This frames the deferential standard applicable when a district court enforces previously imposed filing restrictions.
• Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 354 (10th Cir. 1989): Referenced twice. First, to confirm that the imposition of filing restrictions is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Second, to emphasize that the right of access to the courts is not absolute or unconditional and does not extend to frivolous or malicious litigation. Tripati supplies both the standard of review and the doctrinal backbone supporting restrictions on abusive litigation practices.
• United States v. Mobley, 971 F.3d 1187, 1195 (10th Cir. 2020): Provides a working definition of “abuse of discretion” (clear error of judgment; decision beyond the bounds of permissible choice; arbitrary, capricious, whimsical; manifestly unreasonable). The panel applied this lens to assess whether striking a motion for failure to seek leave fell within the district court’s permissible choices.
• Committee on Conduct of Attorneys v. Oliver, 510 F.3d 1219, 1223 (10th Cir. 2007): Clarifies that while pro se filings are generally construed liberally, that leniency does not extend to licensed attorneys. The court noted Massey had represented that he was formerly an attorney on disability inactive status. The panel elected to construe his filings liberally but emphasized the duty to follow procedural rules.
• Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840–41 (10th Cir. 2005): Two key propositions flow from Garrett: (1) pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure as other litigants; and (2) liberal pleading rules are not a license for abusive filings or ad hominem attacks on the judiciary. This case undergirds the panel’s admonition against Massey’s unfounded attacks on the district judge and supports enforcing procedural requirements against pro se parties.
• Sawyers v. Norton, 962 F.3d 1270, 1286 (10th Cir. 2020): Establishes that issues not raised in the opening brief—or arguments raised inadequately—are abandoned or waived. This is the linchpin of the affirmance: Massey did not develop argument on the only issue before the court (whether striking for lack of leave was an abuse of discretion).
• Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504, 1510 (10th Cir. 1987) (en banc): Defines a frivolous appeal as one where the result is obvious or the arguments wholly without merit. The panel used Braley to justify its frivolousness determination after independent review.
• Nixon v. City & County of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015): Reminds appellants that their first task is to explain why the district court’s decision was wrong. Massey did not do so on the dispositive issue, reinforcing waiver and the frivolousness finding.
• Federal Rules and Circuit Rules: - Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G) supporting submission without oral argument. - FRAP 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1 clarifying that this order and judgment, while not binding precedent (except as law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel), may be cited for persuasive value.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in three tight steps.

1. Standard and scope of review: Enforcing a preexisting filing restriction is a matter of docket control and is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The order under review was narrowly confined to the district court’s decision to strike a specific post‑judgment motion for failure to comply with a clear leave‑to‑file requirement.
2. Waiver by inadequate briefing: The panel examined Massey’s opening brief and found no developed argument explaining why striking his motion for noncompliance with the leave requirement was an abuse of discretion. Although he repeated assertions that the district court’s orders were “void” and raised allegations of “unauthorized practice of law,” those arguments either (a) had already been rejected in companion appeals, or (b) did not address the operative question in this appeal. Under Sawyers, such omission and inadequate presentation constitute waiver.
3. Independent review and frivolousness: The court further stated that its independent review revealed no abuse of discretion: the filing restriction explicitly required leave before “filing any further post‑judgment documents in this action,” and Massey did not seek leave. Striking the motion was a straightforward application of the restriction. Against this backdrop, the court deemed the appeal frivolous, observing that the result was obvious and the appellant did not even attempt to explain error as required by Nixon.

The panel also addressed the pro se posture. Although it chose to construe Massey’s filings liberally, the court reiterated it could not serve as his advocate and that pro se parties must follow the same procedural rules as represented litigants. Notably, the panel admonished Massey for unfounded personal attacks on the district judge, emphasizing that liberal rules are not a vehicle for abusive submissions (Garrett).

Finally, the court issued a forward‑looking warning: continued frivolous appeals may draw filing restrictions or other sanctions in the Tenth Circuit itself, echoing Tripati’s teaching that access to the courts does not extend to frivolous or malicious litigation.

Impact and Implications

While designated nonprecedential, this decision carries persuasive value and signals several practical and doctrinal points that will influence litigants and courts within the Tenth Circuit:

• Robust enforcement of case‑specific prefiling restrictions: District courts may enforce clear, tailored filing restrictions by striking noncompliant submissions without reaching the merits. Litigants subject to such restrictions should expect strict application, especially where the restriction explicitly requires leave for further post‑judgment filings.
• Appellate waiver rules are outcome‑determinative: Appeals that fail to develop argument on the only dispositive issue will be deemed waived and, as here, may be found frivolous. This underscores the critical importance of disciplined, issue‑focused appellate briefing.
• Pro se litigants must adhere to procedural rules: Even with liberal construction, courts will enforce procedural requirements against pro se parties, including those with prior legal training. Attempts to repackage previously rejected arguments or to launch collateral attacks unrelated to the order under review will not avoid waiver.
• Limited room to use post‑judgment motions to end‑run restrictions: Parties cannot evade prefiling restrictions by styling a post‑judgment submission as a motion to vacate “void” orders. When a restriction requires prior leave, courts may strike such motions without engaging their merits.
• Sanctions and appellate filing restrictions remain available: The panel’s warning foreshadows that repeated frivolous appeals may trigger FRAP‑adjacent remedies (such as sanctions or leave‑to‑file requirements) imposed by the appellate court, not just the district court, to protect judicial resources.
• Companion decisions matter: Here, companion appeals had already affirmed the underlying dismissal, fees, and the filing restrictions themselves. Litigants should be aware that continuing to press rejected theories in spin‑off appeals—without addressing the specific, narrow issue presented—will accelerate a frivolousness finding.