Automated Summary
Key Facts
The United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed Plaintiff Milan Michael Kotevski's action and imposed filing restrictions on his future pro se filings. Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler recommended dismissal because Kotevski refused to pay filing fees or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. After de novo review of objections, the Court adopted the recommendation, finding Kotevski has steadfastly refused to request in forma pauperis leave and has a history of abusive litigation across multiple districts and circuits.
Issues
- Whether the court should impose filing restrictions on the plaintiff's future pro se filings given his history of abusive litigation and repeated refusal to pay filing fees
- Whether the court should dismiss the action because the plaintiff refused to pay the required filing fee or seek and obtain leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Holdings
The Court overrules Plaintiff Milan Michael Kotevski's objections and adopts Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler's Report and Recommendation. The action is dismissed for failure to pay the required filing fee or obtain leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Additionally, the Court imposes filing restrictions on Mr. Kotevski's future pro se filings, requiring them to be collected by the Clerk, reviewed by a Magistrate Judge for merit, and certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 before filing.
Remedies
The Court dismisses Plaintiff Milan Michael Kotevski's action for failure to pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 or to seek and obtain leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Additionally, the Court imposes filing restrictions on Mr. Kotevski's future pro se filings without paying a filing fee or requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. New civil complaints will be collected by the Clerk and reviewed by a Magistrate Judge, who will forward meritless complaints to the Chief District Judge for further review.
Legal Principles
The court applied de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for magistrate judge recommendations after timely objection. The action was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 or obtain leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court also imposed filing restrictions on future pro se filings requiring Magistrate Judge review and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 certification.
Precedent Name
Northington v. Marin
Cited Statute
- Pleadings Certification
- Filing Fees
- De Novo Review
- In Forma Pauperis
Judge Name
- Paul Kohler, United States Magistrate Judge
- Ann Marie McIff Allen, United States District Judge
Passage Text
- ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) and DISMISSES Plaintiff's action; and FURTHER ORDERS Plaintiff Milan Michael Kotevski's future filings with this Court in any matter in which he proceeds pro se and without paying a filing fee, or requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis, shall be subject to the following restrictions: 1. Any new civil complaint Mr. Kotevski submits to this court will be collected by the Clerk of the Court and sent to a Magistrate Judge for review. 2. The Magistrate Judge will then review the complaint to determine whether it is meritorious and should be filed, or whether it is meritless, duplicative, or frivolous. 3. If the Magistrate Judge determines that the complaint is meritless, duplicative, or frivolous, the Magistrate Judge will forward the complaint to the Chief District Judge for further review. 4. Only with the Chief District Judge's consent will the complaint be filed. 5. Mr. Kotevski's pleadings must be certified as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
- The Court concludes that this action should be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 or to seek and obtain leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
- Based on the foregoing, having reviewed all relevant materials, including a de novo review of the reasoning set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court overrules Mr. Kotevski's objections and adopts the recommendation, finding that, irrespective of Mr. Kotevski's ability to pay a filing fee, Mr. Kotevski has steadfastly refused to request leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Additionally, given Mr. Kotevski's litigation history in this District, the Tenth Circuit, and elsewhere, he should be subject to filing restrictions. Accordingly, the Court concludes, on de novo review, that this action should be dismissed and Mr. Kotevski's future pro se filings should be restricted.