Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The court anchored its disposition in longstanding Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit authority on finality, preclusion, and vexatious litigation controls:

• Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey and Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank: These cases establish that a federal court’s determination of its jurisdiction, while reviewable directly, is not open to collateral attack later. Once final, a judgment is res judicata even if the court arguably lacked jurisdiction.
• Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee: Principles of res judicata apply to jurisdictional determinations. Parties who had an opportunity to litigate subject-matter jurisdiction cannot reopen it collaterally.
• Kontrick v. Ryan (footnote): Reinforces the prohibition on collateral attacks even when the attack concerns subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Campbell v. City of Spencer; Thomas v. Kaven; Day v. Moscow: Together set the standards for de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals and confirm that res judicata can be resolved on a motion to dismiss when the defense is apparent from the record.
• Malloy v. Monahan: Attorney’s fee awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with legal predicates reviewed de novo.
• Tripati v. Beaman: The right to access courts is not absolute; courts may impose reasonable filing restrictions on abusive litigants, provided due process and narrow tailoring.
• Committee on Conduct of Attorneys v. Oliver; Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer: Courts may relax pleading standards for pro se filings, but not for practicing lawyers; all litigants must follow the rules, and abusive filings are unacceptable. The panel opted to construe Massey’s papers liberally while insisting on proper procedure.
• Regan‑Touhy v. Walgreen Co.; Singleton v. Wulff: Appellate review is confined to the record below; new issues or evidence may be entertained only in rare, compelling circumstances not present here.
• Sawyers v. Norton; Braley v. Campbell: Arguments inadequately developed in the opening brief are waived; an appeal is frivolous when the result is obvious or the arguments wholly without merit.

These authorities directly shaped the court’s rejection of Massey’s collateral attack on the Kentucky judgment, its affirmance of dismissal on claim-preclusion grounds, and its endorsement of sanctions and filing controls in the face of repetitive litigation.

Legal Reasoning

1. Claim Preclusion Applied to Massey II:

   The Colorado action arose from the same transactions underlying Massey I—namely, the alleged mailing and loss of a payoff cashier’s check and the resulting default and dispute over the HELOC. The district court dismissed claims tied to pre–May 12, 2020 facts with prejudice and later dismissed the repleaded Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, finding no meaningful differentiation from Massey I beyond references to later monthly statements.

   On appeal, Massey did not attack the elements of res judicata. Instead, he argued that Massey I was void, which, if accepted, would undermine preclusion. But because that argument is a prohibited collateral attack on a final federal judgment, the claim-preclusion dismissal stands.

2. No Collateral Attack on Subject‑Matter Jurisdiction:

   Massey contended the Kentucky court lacked diversity jurisdiction and that UCC principles extinguished his HELOC obligation when SLS allegedly received the check, rendering the case moot. The panel held it had no authority to entertain a collateral attack on the Kentucky court’s jurisdictional determination. Such challenges must be made by direct appeal in the rendering circuit (the Sixth Circuit), which Massey did not pursue in Massey I. Therefore, neither the Colorado district court nor the Tenth Circuit could declare the Kentucky judgment void.

   The court noted that “rare” exceptions permitting collateral challenges to jurisdiction were neither raised nor applicable.

3. Vacatur Denied; Jurisdictional Arguments Were Conclusory:

   The district court rejected Massey’s effort to vacate both the Kentucky judgment and the Colorado dismissal order. With respect to the Colorado case, the court observed that Massey himself invoked diversity jurisdiction and that his contrary assertions were conclusory. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.

4. Attorney’s Fees and Filing Restrictions Upheld:

   Applying an abuse-of-discretion standard (with de novo review of the legal basis), the court affirmed the fee award and filing restrictions. Massey offered no targeted, meritorious arguments against these rulings. The injunction narrowly requires leave of court before any new pro se action in the District of Colorado against SLS or Computershare defendants on the same subject matter, and before additional post-judgment filings in the case—well within Tripati’s framework.

5. No Expansion of the Record on Appeal:

   The panel denied motions to file an overlength amended opening brief to add a post-judgment bank “notarized statement” concerning the cashier’s check. Appellate review is generally limited to the district-court record, and the proffered document was immaterial to the dispositive ground of affirmance (the foreclosure of collateral attacks and the independent res judicata ruling).

6. Frivolous Appeals and Warning:

   The court declared the appeals frivolous because Massey did not meaningfully challenge the dispositive rulings and his arguments were wholly without merit. It cautioned that continued frivolous filings may prompt sanctions or pre-filing restrictions at the appellate level.

The court also rejected as inadequately developed Massey’s accusations of judicial misconduct and corruption, reiterating that liberal pleading rules are not a license for abusive filings or ad hominem attacks on the trial judge.

Impact and Prospective Significance

Although issued as a nonprecedential order and judgment, the opinion has substantial persuasive value in several areas:

• Finality of Federal Judgments: The decision robustly reaffirms that once a federal judgment becomes final on direct review, parties cannot collaterally contest the issuing court’s subject-matter jurisdiction in a subsequent case. This constrains forum-shopping and serial litigation designed to circumvent adverse outcomes.
• Cross‑Circuit Preclusion: A judgment entered in one federal circuit (here, the Sixth Circuit’s district court) precludes relitigation in another (the Tenth Circuit) where the claims arise from the same operative facts, underscoring nationwide respect for federal judgments.
• Vexatious-Litigant Controls: The affirmance of tailored filing restrictions and fees sends a clear signal that district courts may, and should, deploy these tools to protect judicial resources and defendants from repetitive, meritless suits, provided the restrictions are narrow and procedurally proper.
• Appellate Practice Discipline: The denial of leave to append extra-record materials and exceed word limits highlights the strictures of appellate review: parties must fully develop their record and arguments below, and extraordinary circumstances are required to deviate from that principle.
• Pro Se Treatment for Former Attorneys: The court’s choice to liberally construe filings from a formerly licensed attorney, while emphasizing adherence to procedural rules and civility, offers practical guidance on calibrating pro se leniency without enabling abuse.

For litigants and counsel, the case is a cautionary tale: challenges to jurisdiction must be timely raised in the original case via direct appeal; efforts to relitigate by collateral attack will fail and risk fee-shifting and filing injunctions.