Appellate Case: 17-4055 Document: 01019841203 Date Filed: 07/14/2017

Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 14, 2017

_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
CODY ROBERT JUDY,

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
_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

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

unless and until Mr. Judy pays the required fees.

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

28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and dismissed it as frivolous. We affirmed the district

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

relief and for reconsideration.

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

10th Cir. R. 3.3(B)(1), 42.1.

Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge