United States District Court, D. Wyoming
ORDER IMPOSING FILING RESTRICTIONS ON HOLLI LUNDAHL
SCOTT W. SKAVDAHL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on "Eli Lilly and Company and Cheryl Schrock's Motion to Impose Appropriate Pre-Filing Restrictions on Plaintiff-(Doc. 38). Ms. Lundahl responded to the motion by filing a "Motion to Dismiss Eli Lilly's Motion for Entry of a Pre-HIMg Injunction Against Holli Lundahl..." (Doc. 55). Having considered the motion and Ms. Lundahl's response. and being otherwise fully advised. the Court finds that the motion should be granted and appropriate filing restrictions should be entered against Ms. Lundahl in this Court.
Federal courts have the inherent power to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under appropriate circumstances. Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). Injunctions restricting further filing are appropriate where (1) the litigant's lengthy and abusive history is set forth; (2) the court provides guidelines as to what the litigant may do to obtain its permission to file an action; and (3) the litigant receives notice and an opportunity to oppose the court's order before it is implemented. See id. at 353-54.
1. Opportunity to be Heard
Ms. Lundahl has already had the opportunity to be heard on the issue of filing restrictions. Ms. Lundahl responded to the motion for filing restrictions by filing a "Motion to Dismiss Eli Lilly's Motion for Entry of a Pre-Filing Injunction Against Holli Lundahl..." (Doc. 55). There, she argued this Court does not have authority to enter filing restrictions against her. As stated above, though, federal courts possess inherent authority to regulate the filings of abusive litigants by imposing appropriate restrictions. Tripati, 878 F.2d at 352 ("A district court has power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to enjoin litigants who abuse the court system by harassing their opponents."). Thus, Ms. Lundahl has received notice and the opportunity to oppose the Court's order before it is instituted. See Tripati, 878 F.2d at 354.
2. Lengthy and Abusive Filing History
Plaintiff Holli Lundahl has a lengthy history of filing abusive, vexatious, frivolous actions and pleadings, both in this Court and in other state and federal courts. For example, in 2003, the Utah Supreme Court noted Ms. Lundahl filed 19 appeals, for writ petitions, two petitions for certiorari, and two petitions for interlocutory appeal before that court, all in approximately four years. Lundahl v. Quinn, 67 P.3d 1000, 1001 (Utah 2003). That court found her filings were "routinely frivolous" and "with the apparent purpose, or at least effect, of harassment; not only of opposing parties, but of the judicial machinery itself." Id. at 2002. The Utah Supreme Court imposed filing restrictions against Ms. Lundahl.
A non-exhaustive list of additional courts that have imposed filing restrictions against Ms. Lundahl includes:
1. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Lundahl, No. 97-80258 (9th Cir. Jul. 17, 1997);
2. The United States District Court for the District of Utah, In re Lundahl (D.Utah July 8, 2004) (general order imposing filing restrictions);
3. The United States Supreme Court, Lundahl v. Eli Lilly & Co., 73 USLW 3631, 2005 WL ...