Hessert v. Street Dog Coalition, The et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Nina Y. Wang
Civil Action No. 25-cv-03807-NYW-NRN
JOHN T. HESSERT,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE STREET DOG COALITION,
KATRINA WESCHLER,
STACEY EVANS,
ANDREA ROMANO,
TOM HUDSON,
RACHAEL BROWN,
LISA CUMMINS DULCHINOS,
DOUG MCINNIS,
SANDRINE CHAUMETTE,
KYLIE CLARK,
WARREN JACKSON,
WENDY YAN HOPPE, and
SHOSHANA MOSTOLLER,
Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING FILING RESTRICTIONS
“[T]he right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional, . . . and
there is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is
frivolous or malicious.” 	Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989) (per
curiam). 	“The goal of fairly dispensing justice . . . is compromised when the Court is
forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous
requests.” In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 179–80 (1991).
Case No. 1:25-cv-03807-NYW-NRN Document 137 filed 05/06/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 8

2
“Federal courts have the inherent power to regulate the activities of abusive
litigants 	by 	imposing 	carefully 	tailored 	restrictions 	in 	appropriate 	circumstances.”
Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1077 (10th Cir. 2007). 	A filing restriction is
appropriate where the Court has (1) described a litigant’s history of abusive filings,
(2) provided guidelines for what the litigant must do to obtain permission to submit
additional filings, and (3) given the litigant notice and an opportunity to respond before
the restrictions are implemented. Id. A district court’s decision to impose filing restrictions
is reviewed for abuse of discretion. 	Calvin v. Lyons, 770 F. App’x 433, 434 (10th Cir.
2019) (citing Tripati, 878 F.2d at 354).
Plaintiff John Hessert (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Hessert”) initiated this civil action on
November 24, 2025. [Doc. 1]. In the five months since, he has inundated the docket with
filings; by this Court’s count, Plaintiff has filed approximately 49 motions and/or other
documents seeking various forms of affirmative relief from the Court1 and has submitted
at least 17 other filings captioned as supplements, notices, or declarations.2 Aside from
the sheer volume of his filings, many of Mr. Hessert’s motions seek relief that is redundant
or duplicative of motions previously filed, including both motions that have already been
ruled on and motions that remain pending.
1 See [Doc. 3; Doc. 4; Doc. 8; Doc. 9; Doc. 11; Doc. 12; Doc. 15; Doc. 19; Doc. 30; Doc.
31; Doc. 32; Doc. 33; Doc. 34; Doc. 35; Doc. 36; Doc. 41; Doc. 42; Doc. 43; Doc. 44; Doc.
47; Doc. 56; Doc. 57; Doc. 60; Doc. 65; Doc. 66; Doc. 70; Doc. 79; Doc. 81; Doc. 85; Doc.
89; Doc. 92; Doc. 95; Doc. 98; Doc. 101; Doc. 107; Doc. 110; Doc. 112; Doc. 113; Doc.
115; Doc. 116; Doc. 117; Doc. 119; Doc. 122; Doc. 123; Doc. 124; Doc. 125; Doc. 127;
Doc. 129; Doc. 136].
2 See [Doc. 21; Doc. 23; Doc. 37; Doc. 38; Doc. 48; Doc. 51; Doc. 53; Doc. 67; Doc. 68;
Doc. 76; Doc. 77; Doc. 87; Doc. 88; Doc. 94; Doc. 108; Doc. 118; Doc. 126].
Case No. 1:25-cv-03807-NYW-NRN Document 137 filed 05/06/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 8

3
For example, on December 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. 	[Doc. 32 (the “December
Motion for TRO”)].3 Then, in February—and although the December Motion for TRO was
still 	pending—Plaintiff 	filed 	another 	Renewed 	Motion 	for 	Emergency 	Temporary
Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Order to Show Cause, [Doc. 65 (the
“February Motion for TRO”)], which seeks (in part) relief identical to the relief sought in
the December Motion, compare [Doc. 32 at 2 (requesting the Court to enter a temporary
restraining order “as set forth in” the proposed order associated with Plaintiff’s original
motion for temporary restraining order], and [Doc. 4-1 at 1 (proposed restraining order
enjoining Defendants from conducting, advertising, or operating any veterinary clinics or
charitable activities until they maintain a registered agent in Colorado)], with [Doc. 65 at
15 (requesting this same injunctive relief)]. 	This Court referred the December and
February Motions for TRO to the Honorable N. Reid Neureiter. 	[Doc. 73]. 	Judge
Neureiter issued a Recommendation on April 3, 2026, recommending that this Court deny
those 	Motions. 	[Doc. 	104]. 	Prior 	to 	filing 	objections 	to 	Judge 	Neureiter’s
Recommendation,4 Plaintiff filed yet another motion for temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction on April 20, 2026 that “renew[ed] his original ECF 4, 32, 37 65 70
etc.” [Doc. 124 at 1].
Similarly, on April 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to “correct clerical errors” on the
electronic docket, taking issue with the fact that the docket did not reflect the entire title
3 Plaintiff filed an original Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 on November 24, 2025. [Doc. 4]. The Honorable
Lewis T. Babcock denied that motion as premature on December 1, 2025. [Doc. 10].
4 Plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation on April 30, 2026. 	[Doc. 130]. 	The
Court will rule on these objections in due course.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03807-NYW-NRN Document 137 filed 05/06/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 8

4
of some of his filings. [Doc. 116]. He filed another motion requesting this same relief on
April 16, 2026, [Doc. 117], and a third motion on April 17, 2026, [Doc. 119]. 	This Court
denied the first two motions on April 17, 2026,5 explaining that truncating the titles of
Plaintiff’s various filings—which are frequently quite long—“is a standard practice of the
Clerk’s Office to conserve space on the docket.” 	[Doc. 120 at 4]. 	In other words, the
Court made clear that it would not grant this relief. But despite this clear ruling, Plaintiff
filed yet another motion requesting this same type of relief on April 20, 2026. [Doc. 123].
These two examples are far from exhaustive. Plaintiff has filed seven motions to
recuse 	the 	undersigned 	and/or 	Judge 	Neureiter, 	most 	of 	which 	raise 	redundant
arguments that have already been rejected by this Court and/or Judge Neureiter, see
[Doc. 34; Doc. 43; Doc. 79; Doc. 95; Doc. 98; Doc. 113; Doc. 127], as well as five other
filings that also cursorily seek recusal or reassignment of the case, [Doc. 35 at 9; Doc. 36
at 1; Doc. 41 at 7; Doc. 60 at 1; Doc. 117 at 2]. 	While Plaintiff’s motion for alternative
service was still pending, see [Doc. 19], he filed at least four other motions requesting
that same relief, see [Doc. 56 at 2; Doc. 66; Doc. 85; Doc. 98 at 10]. And recently, after
this Court denied Mr. Hessert’s request under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) for a waiver of the fee
to obtain an audio recording of the March 30, 2026 Status Conference, see [Doc. 120];
see also [Doc. 109 (this Court explaining why § 753(f) does not apply in this case)],
Plaintiff filed yet another motion seeking a fee waiver (without acknowledgment of the
5 The third motion requesting correction of “clerical errors” was docketed just shortly
before the Court’s April 17, 2026 Minute Order issued. For the reasons set forth in that
Minute Order, see [Doc. 120], Plaintiff’s Consolidated Third Motion to Correct Clerical
Errors in Docket Entries Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) and 79(a), [Doc. 119], is
DENIED.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03807-NYW-NRN Document 137 filed 05/06/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 8

5
Court’s prior rulings), see [Doc. 123], and again made this same request in his objections
to Judge Neureiter’s Recommendation, see [Doc. 130 at 4].
This Court has twice warned Plaintiff that “if he continues to file excessive and
duplicative motions, the Court may consider imposing filing restrictions.” [Doc. 61 at 10
(issued January 12, 2026)]; see also [Doc. 120 at 5 (issued April 17, 2026)]. And Judge
Neureiter has advised Plaintiff that his excessive filings only have the effect of slowing
down the progression of this litigation:
Before the pro se status conference occurred in this case (which this Court
conducts in every pro se case), Plaintiff filed dozens of pleadings, motions,
and objections. 	Indeed, without service having been accomplished, there
are today more than 100 docket entries. The Court would like to let Plaintiff
know that the wheels of justice, although not turning at the speed that he
would prefer, are indeed turning. 	With more than 350 cases on this
magistrate judge’s docket, the numerous written orders that all these cases
require take some time to write and issue.
. . .
Filing motions every day, or every other day, to accomplish what the Court
already told Plaintiff it would be doing, and which was reflected in the
Court’s minutes of the proceedings, . . . serves no purpose other than to
exasperate the judicial officer and court staff charged with managing this
litigation.
[Doc. 104 at 8–9]; see also [Doc. 120 at 5 (this Court explaining that “the District of
Colorado is an extraordinarily busy judicial district, and filing duplicative motions will not
result in Plaintiff getting an answer more quickly”)].
This Court understands that Mr. Hessert is committed to this legal action and has
a vested interest in its outcome. 	But “courts . . . are not required to expend judicial
resources endlessly entertaining repetitive arguments.” 	Lonsdale v. United States, 919
F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990). 	This Court and Judge Neureiter have expended
considerable resources managing this docket and ruling on Plaintiff’s various motions, to
Case No. 1:25-cv-03807-NYW-NRN Document 137 filed 05/06/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 8

6
no avail; despite multiple admonishments and warnings, Mr. Hessert has continued to file
repetitive, redundant, and excessive motions, making it clear that he is unable or unwilling
to accept this Court’s orders. 	And his excessive filings and demands for immediate
rulings have rendered his litigation conduct abusive and vexatious, rendering filing
restrictions appropriate in this case. 	See Morrison v. Beemer, No. 21-cv-00077-STV,
2022 WL 612393, at *1, *3–4 (D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2022) (recognizing that the plaintiff’s
“pattern of frivolous, repetitive filings and continued disregard for the court’s orders
denying [the plaintiff’s] motions” constituted “abusive and frivolous litigation” and imposing
filing restrictions based on 24 frivolous motions); Garcia v. Waken, No. 16-cv-01977-PAB-
NYW, 2021 WL 4947236, at *3 (D. Colo. Aug. 3, 2021) (recommending filing restrictions
where the plaintiff ignored the Court’s repeated explanations as to why his motions were
without merit, which demonstrated that the plaintiff would “continue to file groundless,
repetitive motions that [would] continue to take up [the Court’s] limited judicial resources”),
recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 970003 (D. Colo. Mar. 31, 2022).
The Court concludes that the following filing restrictions are appropriate:
Mr. Hessert will be restricted from filing any additional motion or document
without leave of Court. 	To obtain leave of Court to file a motion or
document, Mr. Hessert must follow the following procedures:
(1) Mr. Hessert shall file a motion for leave to file a motion or
document.
(2) The motion for leave must be mailed (or hand-delivered) to
the Clerk of Court. 	The Clerk of Court will no longer accept
emailed submissions from Plaintiff. Submissions made via email
will be summarily rejected.
(3) The motion for leave must be accompanied by (a) a copy of
the proposed motion or document; (b) a declaration that contains
a short statement of the legal basis for the motion or document
and a certification that the legal arguments in the proposed filing
Case No. 1:25-cv-03807-NYW-NRN Document 137 filed 05/06/26 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 8

7
are not frivolous or made in bad faith; and (c) a certification that
complies with this Court’s Standing Order Regarding the Use of
Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in Court Filings.
Any filing that fails to comply with these procedures, and any document filed
without leave of Court, will be summarily stricken without substantive
consideration and without further explanation. Repeated failures to comply
with these procedures or repeated filings submitted without leave of Court
will result in sanctions.
The Court does not impose these restrictions through this Order. 	Before
these restrictions will be imposed, Plaintiff must be provided notice and an opportunity to
oppose these restrictions. 	Andrews, 483 F.3d at 1077. 	Accordingly, on or before May
27, 2026, Mr. Hessert shall SHOW CAUSE why this Court should not impose the filing
restrictions set forth above. Plaintiff shall file one response to the Order to Show Cause.
Should Plaintiff file more than one response, all responses after the first-filed will be
stricken without substantive consideration. 	If Plaintiff does not respond by May 27,
2026, the filing restrictions will automatically take effect.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in this Order, it is ORDERED that:
(1) 	Plaintiff’s Consolidated Third Motion to Correct Clerical Errors in Docket
Entries Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) and 79(a) [Doc. 119] is DENIED;
(2) 	On or before May 27, 2026, Mr. Hessert shall SHOW CAUSE why this Court
should not impose the filing restrictions set forth in this Order. Plaintiff shall
file one response to the Order to Show Cause. 	Should Plaintiff file more
than one response, all responses after the first-filed will be stricken without
substantive consideration; and
Case No. 1:25-cv-03807-NYW-NRN Document 137 filed 05/06/26 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 8

8
(3) 	A copy of this Order shall be mailed to:
John T. Hessert
General Delivery
Bellingham, WA 98225
DATED: May 6, 2026 	BY THE COURT:
_________________________
Nina Y. Wang
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-03807-NYW-NRN Document 137 filed 05/06/26 USDC Colorado
pg 8 of 8