No Collateral Attacks on Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: Tenth Circuit reinforces res judicata and upholds fees and filing restrictions in Massey v. Computershare

Introduction

In Massey v. Computershare Limited, Nos. 24-1095 & 24-1445 (10th Cir. Nov. 13, 2025), the Tenth Circuit issued a nonprecedential but detailed order and judgment affirming a Colorado district court’s dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s suit on res judicata grounds, awarding attorney fees, and imposing filing restrictions. The court also denied motions to file an overlength amended opening brief and expressly deemed the appeals frivolous, warning of potential future sanctions.

The dispute traces back to a HELOC payoff effort gone awry: after the servicer, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (SLS), could not locate a mailed cashier’s check, it asked plaintiff James Harrison Massey to stop payment and reissue the payoff. He declined, later defaulted, and then embarked on multi-forum litigation against SLS, Computershare-related entities, and Bank of America premised on the same underlying events. After an initial federal suit in Kentucky (Massey I) was dismissed and went unappealed, Massey filed the present action in Colorado (Massey II), which the district court dismissed as barred by res judicata. The court also denied Massey’s post-judgment collateral attack on Massey I as “void” for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, awarded $85,624.33 in fees to defendants, and installed gatekeeping restrictions on Massey’s future filings in the District of Colorado concerning the same subject matter.

On appeal, Massey largely avoided directly challenging the district court’s res judicata analysis. Instead, he argued—again—that the Kentucky judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction and judicially unreviewable errors, and he sought to expand the appellate record with a “notarized statement” from his bank regarding the cashier’s check. The Tenth Circuit rejected these efforts, holding that collateral attacks on subject-matter jurisdiction are impermissible once a federal judgment becomes final on direct review, and that the proffered “new” evidence had no bearing on the outcome.

Summary of the Opinion

Affirmed dismissal on res judicata grounds: The district court correctly dismissed Massey’s second amended complaint (SAC) with prejudice; his claims arose from the same nucleus of operative fact as his prior Kentucky case (Massey I), which reached a final judgment he did not appeal.
No collateral attack on jurisdictional determinations: Relying on Supreme Court authority, the Tenth Circuit held that a party who had the opportunity to litigate subject-matter jurisdiction in an earlier case cannot relitigate that question collaterally in a new action. The Colorado district court had no authority to declare the Kentucky judgment void, nor does the Tenth Circuit in this appeal.
Fee award and filing restrictions upheld: The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $85,624.33 in attorney fees and in imposing narrowly tailored filing restrictions requiring leave of court before Massey may file further related actions or post-judgment papers pro se against SLS or the Computershare defendants.
Appellate motions denied: The court denied Massey’s motions to file an amended overlength brief based on post-judgment “new” evidence (a bank declaration). The court emphasized that appellate review is confined to the district court record and found no “extraordinary or compelling circumstances” to justify exceeding word limits or expanding the record.
Appeals deemed frivolous; warning issued: Finding the result “obvious” and the arguments “wholly without merit,” the Tenth Circuit designated the appeals frivolous and warned of possible sanctions or filing restrictions at the appellate level if Massey persists.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137 (2009): The Supreme Court held that federal courts have the authority to decide their own jurisdiction and that those determinations, once final on direct review, are not subject to collateral attack. The Tenth Circuit invoked Travelers to reject Massey’s attempt to relitigate subject-matter jurisdiction from Massey I in a collateral forum. The panel also noted Travelers’ footnote recognizing rare exceptions but emphasized that Massey neither invoked nor established any such exception.
Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371 (1940): Chicot underwrites the principle that even erroneous jurisdictional rulings are binding if not corrected on direct review. The Tenth Circuit used Chicot to reinforce finality and the preclusive effect of jurisdictional determinations.
Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982), n.9: The court cited Insurance Corp. of Ireland for the proposition that res judicata applies to both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction determinations. This is the heart of the Tenth Circuit’s rejection of Massey’s jurisdictional voidness theory.
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455 n.9 (2004): Kontrick’s footnote reiterates that even subject-matter jurisdiction issues are not immune from preclusion once the judgment becomes final. The panel used it to underscore that collateral attacks are barred.
Campbell v. City of Spencer, 777 F.3d 1073 (10th Cir. 2014): Cited for the standard of review: de novo review applies to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals based on res judicata. This guided the panel’s independent evaluation of the district court’s preclusion ruling.
Thomas v. Kaven, 765 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014): Provides the de novo standard for dismissals for failure to state a claim, referenced in the alternative grounds the district court relied on to dismiss the case.
Day v. Moscow, 955 F.2d 807, 811 (2d Cir. 1992): Recognizes that res judicata may be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The Tenth Circuit cited this to confirm procedural propriety.
Malloy v. Monahan, 73 F.3d 1012, 1017 (10th Cir. 1996): Sets the standard of review for fee awards (abuse of discretion), with any underlying legal analysis reviewed de novo. This frames the panel’s review of the attorney fee award.
Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351 (10th Cir. 1989): Authorizes filing restrictions against abusive litigants, subject to due process and narrow tailoring. The Tenth Circuit used Tripati to affirm the gatekeeping order.
Committee on Conduct of Attorneys v. Oliver, 510 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2007) and Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005): These cases frame how courts treat pro se filings—liberally, but not to the point of advocacy or excusing noncompliance with rules. The panel chose to construe Massey’s filings liberally but emphasized limits, particularly given Massey’s background as a formerly licensed attorney.
Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641, 648 (10th Cir. 2008): Confirms that appellate review is confined to the record below, which supported rejection of Massey’s attempt to add a post-judgment bank declaration on appeal.
Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 (1976): Recognizes limited discretion to decide issues not passed on below to prevent injustice. The Tenth Circuit held that even under this rubric, the new evidence Massey offered was not dispositive and would not alter the outcome.
Sawyers v. Norton, 962 F.3d 1270, 1286 (10th Cir. 2020): Provides that inadequately briefed arguments are waived, used here to dispose of Massey’s broad accusations of judicial misconduct.
Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504, 1510 (10th Cir. 1987) (en banc): Defines a frivolous appeal. The Tenth Circuit declared both appeals frivolous because the results were obvious and appellant’s arguments lacked merit.

Legal Reasoning

Claim preclusion controlled the outcome. The district court determined that Massey’s Colorado suit—though styled with additional defendants (Computershare entities, Bank of America) and invoking monthly statements after the Massey I filing date—arose from the same transaction: the disputed HELOC payoff and the consequences of Massey’s refusal to reissue funds or sign indemnity documentation. The magistrate judge and district court concluded that merely pointing to post-complaint statements did not create new, independent claims. The Tenth Circuit, reviewing de novo, affirmed the application of res judicata, noting that Massey had not meaningfully challenged it on appeal.
Collateral attack on subject-matter jurisdiction is forbidden. The keystone of the panel’s decision is that a final federal judgment remains binding as to jurisdictional determinations unless overturned on direct review. Travelers, Chicot, Insurance Corp. of Ireland, and Kontrick collectively foreclose Massey’s theory that the Kentucky judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction and thus a nullity that could be ignored in Colorado. The panel held that neither the Colorado district court nor the Tenth Circuit had authority to declare the Kentucky judgment void in a collateral proceeding. Massey’s failure to appeal Massey I was consequential.
No recognized exception applied. While the Supreme Court has observed that rare exceptions may permit collateral relief from jurisdictional determinations, the panel emphasized that Massey neither invoked nor developed such a theory, and nothing in the record suggested that an exception was implicated.
Alternative grounds—failure to state a claim and service—were noted but not necessary to the affirmance. The district court had also dismissed the SAC in the alternative for failure to state a claim, and additionally dismissed claims against “Computershare, Inc.” without prejudice for improper service. Given the dispositive preclusion ruling and the absence of targeted appellate arguments, the Tenth Circuit did not need to reach these alternatives to affirm.
Appellate record and motions practice. The court denied Massey’s motions to submit a “notarized” bank declaration about the uncashed cashier’s check and to exceed word limits. Appellate review is limited to the record before the district court; no extraordinary or compelling circumstances justified expansion. The proposed evidence was not dispositive in any event, as the threshold preclusion and anti-collateral-attack rules resolved the appeal.
Attorney fees and filing restrictions. Applying abuse-of-discretion review (with de novo review of underlying legal premises), the Tenth Circuit affirmed the fee award and filing restrictions. The district court’s order was properly tailored: it barred Massey from filing pro se litigation in the District of Colorado against SLS or Computershare entities on the same subject matter without leave, and from filing further post-judgment papers in the case without leave. The record showed a pattern of serial attempts to relitigate the same controversy across jurisdictions.
Pro se status did not excuse abusive or defective advocacy. Although the panel construed Massey’s filings liberally, it emphasized that pro se status—even for a formerly licensed attorney—does not authorize noncompliance with rules, abusive rhetoric toward judges, or collateral attacks on final judgments. Insufficiently developed allegations of judicial misconduct were deemed waived.
Frivolous appeals finding and warning. Because Massey failed to mount any targeted challenge to the district court’s core rulings and instead pressed meritless collateral attacks and improper record-expansion requests, the court declared both appeals frivolous and warned of potential sanctions or appellate filing restrictions if such conduct continued.

Impact

Although designated as nonbinding under Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1, the decision carries significant persuasive weight and practical guidance:

Reinforces finality of jurisdictional determinations: Litigants cannot relitigate a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction in a later collateral forum. The proper remedy for perceived jurisdictional error is direct appeal (or appropriate motions in the rendering court), not a new lawsuit elsewhere.
Clarifies preclusion across multi-forum litigation: Changing defendants or pointing to routine post-complaint account statements will not circumvent claim preclusion when the operative nucleus of fact remains the same. Parties should marshal all claims arising from a transaction in the first action.
Affirms robust tools against vexatious litigation: District courts within the Tenth Circuit can, consistent with Tripati, impose narrowly tailored filing restrictions and award fees to deter duplicative and abusive filings—particularly when litigants repeatedly re-plead the same dispute after adverse final judgments.
Appellate practice discipline: Attempts to exceed word limits without true “extraordinary or compelling” circumstances, or to introduce new evidence on appeal, will be denied. Counsel and pro se litigants alike must confine briefing to the record below and address the actual grounds of decision.
Practical signal to financial services litigation: Disputes over lost or unreceived cashier’s checks used for payoffs must be addressed within the original controversy (e.g., via stop-payment, indemnity mechanisms, and appropriate claims). Refusal to use standard loss/indemnity practices does not generate an endless supply of new tort claims across jurisdictions.
Pro se boundaries: The court’s admonitions reiterate that pro se status is not a license for abusive filings or judicial invective. Repeatedly filing meritless appeals invites sanctions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Res judicata (claim preclusion): If a court enters a final judgment on the merits, the same parties (or those in privity) cannot relitigate claims that were or could have been raised, if they arise from the same transaction or occurrence.
Collateral attack on jurisdiction: A “collateral attack” is an attempt to undermine a final judgment in a different case or forum. Federal law generally forbids collaterally attacking a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction once the judgment is final on direct review.
Subject-matter jurisdiction: A court’s power to hear a type of case. Even if a court arguably erred in finding jurisdiction, that error must be corrected by direct appeal—not by ignoring the judgment in a later case.
Standard of review: Appellate courts review legal rulings de novo (no deference), factual or discretionary decisions (like fees and filing restrictions) for abuse of discretion, and typically limit their review to the record before the lower court.
Vexatious litigant filing restrictions: Courts may require serial filers to get permission before bringing new, related lawsuits, so long as restrictions are narrowly tailored and due process is afforded.
Record on appeal: The appellate court generally will not consider materials that were not before the district court; attempts to add new evidence are almost always rejected.

Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Massey v. Computershare provides a clear and comprehensive reaffirmation of two bedrock doctrines: claim preclusion and the finality of jurisdictional determinations. Once a federal judgment becomes final—whether or not the court arguably erred in asserting jurisdiction—litigants cannot collaterally relitigate that jurisdiction in a different forum. The panel’s disposition also endorses the district court’s measured use of attorney fee awards and filing restrictions to manage duplicative, abusive litigation.

For practitioners and pro se litigants, the message is unmistakable: bring all related claims in the first suit, challenge jurisdictional rulings through direct appeal, confine appellate arguments to the record and to the actual grounds of decision, and avoid abusive rhetoric or meritless serial filings. Failure to heed these principles risks fee shifting, filing restrictions, and sanctions. While the order is nonprecedential, its reasoning—rooted in Supreme Court authority—will carry persuasive force in the Tenth Circuit and beyond.