No Collateral Attack on Jurisdiction: Tenth Circuit Reaffirms Res Judicata and Upholds Fees and Filing Restrictions in Massey v. Computershare Limited

Introduction

In Massey v. Computershare Limited, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Nos. 24-1095 & 24-1445) affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s suit on res judicata grounds, upheld a substantial attorney-fee award, and approved targeted filing restrictions. The case arises out of a home equity line of credit (HELOC) payoff dispute that spawned multiple suits in different forums. After losing an initial case in the Western District of Kentucky (Massey I) and declining to appeal, plaintiff James Harrison Massey refiled in the District of Colorado (Massey II), again asserting tort claims over the same nucleus of operative facts and seeking to collaterally attack the Kentucky court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Tenth Circuit rejected that strategy, holding that federal judgments—whether or not their jurisdictional conclusions were correct—cannot be collaterally attacked in later litigation when the party had an opportunity to litigate jurisdiction directly. The court also denied motions to amend and exceed the word limits for the opening brief to inject new extra-record material, deemed the consolidated appeals frivolous, and warned Massey that continued frivolous filings in the Tenth Circuit may invite sanctions or filing restrictions.

Parties: Plaintiff-Appellant was James Harrison Massey (proceeding pro se and described as a former attorney). Defendants-Appellees were Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (SLS), several Computershare entities, and Bank of America, N.A.

Key issues on appeal:

Whether the plaintiff could collaterally attack the Kentucky judgment (Massey I) for alleged lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in a subsequent action to defeat res judicata.
Whether the District of Colorado properly dismissed Massey’s second amended complaint (SAC) with prejudice on claim-preclusion grounds.
Whether the district court properly denied vacatur, awarded attorney fees, and imposed filing restrictions.
Whether the Tenth Circuit would permit an overlength amended opening brief relying on new evidence not presented below.

Summary of the Opinion

The Tenth Circuit affirmed across the board. It held that:

Claim preclusion (res judicata) barred Massey’s Colorado suit because it arose from the same operative facts as Massey I, which ended in a final judgment that Massey chose not to appeal.
Massey could not collaterally attack the Kentucky court’s subject-matter jurisdiction in a new case; federal judgments retain preclusive force on jurisdictional determinations and must be challenged via direct appeal or appropriate motions in the issuing court.
Arguments alleging judicial misconduct were inadequately developed and therefore waived; the court also admonished Massey for intemperate accusations against the district judge.
Post-judgment attorney fees ($85,624.33) and tailored filing restrictions were within the district court’s discretion, particularly in light of Massey’s serial litigation over the same subject matter.
Motions to amend and to exceed page limits to inject new evidence were denied because appellate review is confined to the district-court record absent extraordinary circumstances—and the proffered bank declaration was neither dispositive nor relevant to the dispositive bar on collateral attacks.
The appeals were frivolous, warranting a caution that continued frivolous filings could lead to sanctions or restrictions in the Tenth Circuit.

The court’s order and judgment is nonprecedential (except under law-of-the-case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel doctrines), though citable for its persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137 (2009): The Supreme Court held that once a federal court enters a final judgment, its jurisdictional determinations cannot be collaterally attacked in later proceedings; the proper route is direct review. The Tenth Circuit relied heavily on this to foreclose Massey’s attempt to re-litigate the Kentucky court’s subject-matter jurisdiction in Colorado.
Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371 (1940): Reinforces that even if a court arguably acts beyond statutory authority, final judgments retain res judicata effect and cannot be set aside collaterally. Cited to underscore the finality principle that anchored the Tenth Circuit’s analysis.
Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982): Clarifies that res judicata applies to jurisdictional determinations—both subject-matter and personal. The Tenth Circuit quoted footnote 9 to emphasize that jurisdictional issues, once litigable, are not fair game for collateral attack.
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004): Quoted for the proposition that even alleged defects in subject-matter jurisdiction are not subject to collateral attack on a final judgment.
Campbell v. City of Spencer, 777 F.3d 1073 (10th Cir. 2014): Sets the de novo standard of review for dismissals under res judicata, guiding the panel’s standard of review.
Thomas v. Kaven, 765 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014): Establishes the de novo standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals for failure to state a claim; cited in case the court reached the district court’s alternative ground.
Day v. Moscow, 955 F.2d 807 (2d Cir. 1992): Supports the proposition that res judicata can be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion; this procedural posture matched the district court’s approach.
Malloy v. Monahan, 73 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir. 1996): Provides the standard of review for attorney-fee awards—clear abuse of discretion for the ultimate decision, de novo review for underlying legal questions. The panel found no basis to disturb the award.
Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351 (10th Cir. 1989): Affirms district courts’ authority to impose filing restrictions on abusive litigants and articulates the general requirement that access to courts does not include a right to pursue frivolous actions. The panel leaned on Tripati to uphold the restrictions and to warn Massey about future sanctions.
Committee on Conduct of Attorneys v. Oliver, 510 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2007): Notes that pro se filings are not liberally construed when the litigant is a licensed attorney. Here, the court nevertheless chose to construe Massey’s filings liberally, while reminding that he must follow procedural rules.
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005): Reiterates that pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules and warns against using pro se status to file abusive documents—a caution the panel directly applied to Massey’s accusations against the trial judge.
Sawyers v. Norton, 962 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2020): Holds that undeveloped arguments are waived; the panel invoked this to reject Massey’s allegations of judicial misconduct.
Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 2008): Establishes that appellate review is confined to the record before the district court—used to reject Massey’s attempt to supplement the record with a new bank declaration on appeal.
Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (1976): Allows for limited discretion to consider issues not passed on below to prevent injustice; the panel explained that no such extraordinary circumstances existed here.
Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504 (10th Cir. 1987) (en banc): Defines a frivolous appeal as one where the result is obvious or the arguments wholly without merit—standards the panel found met.

Legal Reasoning

The central thrust of Massey’s appeal was that the Kentucky court in Massey I lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that, as a result, the Colorado dismissal grounded in res judicata was void, as were the fee award and filing restrictions. The Tenth Circuit declined to “sort out” the mechanics of the argument because it amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on a final federal judgment. Key points:

Collateral attack foreclosed: Federal courts have authority to adjudicate their own jurisdiction in the first instance; those determinations are subject to direct review, not collateral attack. The panel emphasized Supreme Court case law (Travelers, Chicot, Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Kontrick) holding that claim preclusion applies to jurisdictional determinations. Massey thus could not use a new case to undo the jurisdictional underpinnings of Massey I.
Res judicata applied to Massey II: Because Massey’s claims in Colorado arose from the same operative facts as those in Kentucky, claim preclusion barred relitigation. The district court had already dismissed all claims arising on or before May 12, 2020 (the operative-complaint date in Massey I) and, after allowing a further amendment, determined that even the second amended complaint did not identify post-May-12 facts sufficient to escape preclusion. The Tenth Circuit noted Massey did not meaningfully challenge the application of res judicata on appeal.
Vacatur and misconduct allegations: Massey’s bid to vacate judgments on broad allegations of lack of jurisdiction and judicial misconduct failed. The court concluded that collateral attack was unavailable and that the misconduct allegations were insufficiently developed and thus waived; the panel also admonished Massey for intemperate accusations.
Attorney fees and filing restrictions: Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the court affirmed the attorney-fee award and the narrowly tailored filing restrictions. Massey failed to mount specific appellate arguments against either, and the record reflected a history of serial filings over the same subject matter, justifying prophylactic measures.
New evidence on appeal rejected: Massey sought to amend and exceed word limits to include a notarized bank declaration about the cashier’s check not being cashed and the possibility of future negotiation or replacement. The panel denied both motions, explaining that (1) appellate review is generally confined to the district-court record; (2) no extraordinary circumstances justified deviation; and (3) the proffered declaration was not dispositive of the controlling legal bar (no collateral attack on jurisdiction and res judicata).
Frivolous appeals: Because Massey failed to present any persuasive challenge to the dispositive res judicata analysis, fee award, or filing restrictions, and relied on meritless jurisdictional collateral attacks, the court deemed the appeals frivolous and warned of possible sanctions for future frivolous filings.

Impact

Reinforcement of finality: The decision strongly reinforces the finality of federal judgments, including their jurisdictional conclusions, and discourages collateral challenges through later-filed suits in different forums.
Guidance on serial litigation: It affirms district courts’ authority to impose targeted filing restrictions and award fees to deter repetitive, vexatious litigation over the same controversy, even when the litigant proceeds pro se.
Appellate record discipline: The court’s refusal to consider new extra-record evidence underscores the general rule that appeals are decided on the record below absent extraordinary circumstances; mere relevance or litigant insistence on “dispositive” value is insufficient.
Pro se boundaries: The opinion clarifies that liberal construction for pro se filings is not a license to disregard procedural norms or to insult judges, and that even former attorneys appearing pro se are held to compliance with procedural rules.
Persuasive authority: Although nonprecedential, the opinion collects and applies robust Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit authority on res judicata, jurisdictional finality, and filing restrictions—likely to be cited persuasively in future disputes involving collateral attacks on jurisdiction and repetitive litigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Res judicata (claim preclusion): A doctrine preventing relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior action that ended in a final judgment on the merits, involving the same parties or their privies and the same transaction or nucleus of operative facts. It applies not only to issues actually decided but to those that could have been brought.
Collateral attack: An attempt to undermine a final judgment in a different, later proceeding rather than through direct appeal or proper post-judgment motions in the original action. As a rule, collateral attacks on federal judgments are barred, including attacks on subject-matter jurisdiction, when the party had an opportunity to litigate those issues.
Subject-matter jurisdiction and finality: Even if a court arguably errs in assessing its statutory jurisdiction, once its judgment becomes final on direct review (or the time to appeal lapses), that judgment generally cannot be undone in a different case. Limited, rare exceptions exist but must be specifically invoked and are narrowly construed.
“Void” judgments: A judgment is void only in extraordinary circumstances (for example, when a court lacked even arguable jurisdiction or due process was fundamentally denied). Disagreement with a court’s jurisdictional analysis, absent more, does not render a judgment void for collateral attack.
Filing restrictions: Courts may impose tailored restrictions on litigants with a history of frivolous or vexatious filings, after notice and an opportunity to respond, to protect the judicial process and other parties.
Appellate record and new evidence: Appellate courts generally confine review to the record developed in the district court. Attempts to add new evidence on appeal are disfavored and will be denied absent extraordinary, compelling circumstances—and only when material to issues properly before the court.
Standards of review: Res judicata and Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals are reviewed de novo; fee awards and filing restrictions are reviewed for abuse of discretion (with any underlying legal determinations reviewed de novo).

Additional Context and Procedural Timeline

2019: Massey requests a payoff quote for his HELOC from SLS; he sends a cashier’s check; SLS does not locate it; requests stop-payment and replacement; offers to honor original quote and reimburse fees.
2020: Default notice and intent to foreclose issued; bank later returns funds to Massey after stop-payment. Massey files Massey I (W.D. Ky.), asserting tort claims tied to the payoff episode; dismissal follows on Rule 12(b)(6); no appeal.
2021 onward: Massey files Massey II (D. Colo.) against SLS, Computershare entities, and Bank of America. The district court dismisses on res judicata grounds (with distinctions based on pre-/post-May 12, 2020 facts), grants leave to amend; later dismisses SAC with prejudice based on res judicata (and, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim and for defective service as to one entity).
Post-judgment: The district court denies vacatur, awards $85,624.33 in attorney fees, and imposes targeted filing restrictions on Massey concerning future pro se actions against these defendants and further filings in this case without leave of court.
Appeal: Massey appeals (Nos. 24-1095 and 24-1445), primarily arguing that Massey I is void for lack of jurisdiction, and seeks to add new evidence on appeal. The Tenth Circuit affirms, denies the motions to amend/exceed length, and declares the appeals frivolous.

Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Massey v. Computershare Limited powerfully reaffirms two bedrock principles: finality and preclusion. A party cannot use a new lawsuit to collaterally attack a prior federal judgment’s subject-matter jurisdiction; the proper avenues are direct appeal or appropriate motions in the court that issued the judgment. Where a litigant raises repetitive claims arising from the same operative facts after a final judgment, res judicata bars relitigation. And when litigants persist with meritless efforts, district courts may deploy fee awards and carefully tailored filing restrictions to protect the courts and opposing parties.

The court also clarified the contours of appellate practice: it will not enlarge the record to admit new evidence absent extraordinary circumstances, and it expects even pro se litigants—particularly those with legal training—to adhere to procedural rules and to advance developed, respectful arguments. Declaring these appeals frivolous, the court warned that continued frivolous filings in the Tenth Circuit could trigger additional sanctions or filing restrictions.

In short, the opinion underscores that final federal judgments, including their jurisdictional determinations, cannot be unmade through collateral attack, and it affirms robust but measured tools for managing serial, duplicative litigation.