Bret David Landrith, Topeka, KS, pro se.
Stephen Phillips, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Kansas, Gregory A. Lee, Cooper & Lee, David W. Davies, III, Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Samuel A. Green, J. Steven Pigg, Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, Amy Shreffler Raymond, Young Williams Child Support Services, Topeka, KS, Christopher Allman, Brandon David Laird, Office of the United States Attorney, Jerome Wolf, Dentons, Kansas City, MO, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before MATHESON, Circuit Judge, PORFILIO, Senior Circuit Judge, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judge.
On September 10, 2013, we ordered Bret D. Landrith to show cause why this court should not impose filing restrictions on him. Mr. Landrith has timely responded, but he has failed to demonstrate good cause why the proposed filing restrictions should not be imposed. It is therefore ordered that the filing restrictions proposed in this court's September 10, 2013, order, a copy of which is attached to this order, shall take effect immediately upon entry of this order.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT IMPOSE FILING RESTRICTIONS ON BRET D. LANDRITH
Bret D. Landrith is the pro se appellant in three appeals decided today. See Landrith v. Schmidt, 531 Fed.Appx. 942, Nos. 12-3302 & 12-3332, 2013 WL 4793246 (10th Cir. Sept. 10, 2013); Landrith v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 531 Fed.Appx. 944, No. 13-3080, 2013 WL 4796325 (10th Cir. Sept. 10, 2013). In these decisions, we upheld the dismissals of two complaints and the imposition of pro se filing restrictions against Landrith in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. See Schmidt, 531 Fed.Appx. at 943-44; Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 531 Fed.Appx. at 945. In light of these decisions and Landrith's litigation history in this court, we take up the issue of whether Landrith also should be restricted from filing pro se matters in this court.
Landrith graduated from law school in 2001 and was admitted to the Kansas bar in 2002, but he was disbarred in 2005. See In re Landrith, 280 Kan. 619, 124 P.3d 467, 470, 486 (2005) (per curiam). In concurring with the disciplinary panel's recommendation of disbarment, the Kansas Supreme Court noted that Landrith's " language is occasionally incoherent, and, more than occasionally, inflammatory. In the pleadings and the motions, [Landrith] consistently fails to cite a factual basis for his allegations or to develop sensible legal arguments." Id. at 470. The disciplinary panel found that Landrith violated six of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct in representing two clients, and noted Landrith's " ‘ total incompetence in the practice of law.’ " Id. at 478.
The panel found that [Landrith] felt his law license granted him the ability to allege whatever he wanted against whatever person or entity, regardless of whether the allegations were true or false. The panel further found that [Landrith] was " either unwilling or unable to understand basic principles in the practice of law" ; that he would be a detriment to future clients, the public, the legal profession, and the legal system; and that his performance as a lawyer and his allegations of misconduct on the part of others were reprehensible.
Id. at 478-79. Ultimately the Kansas Supreme Court concluded that the record " provides a wealth of evidence supporting the panel's recommendation and none supporting [Landrith's] plea for dismissal" and ordered him disbarred. Id. at 486.
Pro Se Litigation Before This Court
In 2004, Landrith appealed from the district court's dismissal of a civil rights complaint in which he sought to enjoin the Kansas disbarment proceedings. Landrith v. Hazlett, 170 Fed.Appx. 29, 30 (10th Cir.2006). By the time the appeal was before the court for decision, however, the disbarment proceedings had concluded and Landrith's claims for injunctive relief were moot. See id. at 30. His claims for costs survived, id. at 31, but this court concluded that the district court had properly dismissed his complaint under the Younger abstention doctrine, id. ...