Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 17-4055
(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00093-TS)
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, a/k/a (D. Utah)
Barry Soetoro; DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL COMMITTEE;
ORGANIZATION FOR ACTION,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER
_________________________________
Cody Robert Judy appeals the district courts denial of his motion for relief from
judgment and a later motion for reconsideration. Because Mr. Judys appeal is frivolous,
we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and decline to consider the issue further
Mr. Judy brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Sherman Antitrust Act,
and the Clayton Act, asserting that former President Barack Obama is not a natural-born
citizen eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, and that he and other
high-ranking public and party officials, including Representative Nancy Pelosi and
Senator Harry Reid, acted as a cartel . . . in the political arena contrary to the public
Appellate Case: 17-4055 Document: 01019841203 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 2
good. Aplt. App. at 6. Because Mr. Judy brought this action in forma pauperis (ifp)
under 28 U.S.C. 1915, the district court undertook its duty to screen the complaint, see
courts decision. See Judy v. Obama, 601 F. Appx. 620, 623 (10th Cir. 2015).
Almost two years after our decision Mr. Judy filed in the district court a motion
for relief from the district courts judgment, citing new evidence that President
Obamas birth certificate was forged. The district court denied the motion. Mr. Judy
moved for reconsideration of the district courts denial, arguing that the district court
prematurely denied his motion before defendants filed a response. The district court
denied the motion for reconsideration and Mr. Judy appealed the denial of his motions for
Mr. Judy seeks to appeal without prepaying the appeal fees. See 28 U.S.C.
1915(a). But prepayment of fees may be excused only if the applicant shows a financial
inability to pay the required filing fees and the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous
argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal. DeBardeleben
v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). An argument, like a
complaint, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (describing when a complaint is frivolous).
We have reviewed Mr. Judys ifp motion, his appellate briefs, and the district court
record. Mr. Judy has made no serious attempt at showing how the district court erred.
Because his appeal is frivolous, he may not proceed further until he pays all required
fees. He must pay the full amount of the filing and docketing fees to the Clerk of the
2
Appellate Case: 17-4055 Document: 01019841203 Date Filed: 07/14/2017 Page: 3
District Court within twenty (20) days of the date of this order. If he fails to make timely
payment, the Clerk of this Court shall dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute. See
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge