IN RE: Kenneth P. O'HANLON (2025)

ORDER OF COURT

Upon consideration of Petitioners’ Petition Pursuant to C.A.R. 21 for Rule to Show Cause, Respondent Kenneth O'Hanlon’s response thereto, and Petitioners’ reply, and being sufficiently advised in the premises,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

The Order to Show Cause issued by this Court on February 25, 2025 is hereby MADE ABSOLUTE, and Respondent Kenneth O'Hanlon is enjoined, whether acting individually or on behalf of another entity, from proceeding pro se as a proponent of a claim (e.g., as plaintiff, third-party claimant, cross-claimant, counter-claimant, appellant, or petitioner) in any present or future litigation in the state courts of Colorado. The chief judge of each judicial district shall notify the clerk's office(s) in that judge's district of this Order and instruct the staff to reject any filing from Respondent Kenneth O'Hanlon that violates this injunction.

Although every person has the right of access to the courts of this state and article II, section 6 of the Colorado Constitution affords litigants the right to the administration of justice “without sale, denial or delay,” these rights are impeded when a pro se litigant “pursues myriad claims without regard to relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Morgan Cnty. v. Winslow, 862 P.2d 921, 923 (Colo. 1993). In such circumstances, the pro se litigant's right of access to Colorado's state courts is not absolute and may be curtailed to cease continued disruption of judicial administration. GHP Horwath, P.C. v. Kazazian, 2024 CO 8, ¶ 1, 543 P.3d 1035, 1037. Indeed, this court has the obligation to protect courts, citizens, and opposing parties alike from the harmful impact of repetitive and unfounded pro se litigation. Id. By balancing a pro se litigant's “right of access” against the interests of other litigants and the public, the court heeds that duty. Francis v. Wegener, 2021 CO 66, ¶ 59, 494 P.3d 598, 608.

This case requires such a balancing. For more than a decade, Respondent has engaged in a campaign of pro se litigation aimed at overturning orders entered against him and seeking to nullify agreements that he signed to settle contempt proceedings against him. In all, Respondent's pro se litigation has involved ten separate lawsuits in state and federal courts, eleven appeals, and one C.A.R. 21 original proceeding. This litigation has repeatedly been directed at Petitioners, and in several instances, Respondent has pursued claims against the same party in multiple lawsuits at the same time. In addition, Respondent has repeatedly sought to reopen cases after they were declared closed and his appeals were denied. And all of Respondent's litigation has been unsuccessful, with courts repeatedly finding such litigation to be frivolous and groundless (a representative listing of matters in which Respondent has repeatedly pursued claims deemed to be without merit and in contravention of applicable rules of civil and appellate procedure is attached as Appendix A).

Respondent's history of frivolous and groundless litigation demonstrates an ongoing abuse of the judicial process aimed at harassing Petitioners and others. It also has impeded the normal functioning of judicial processes by, among other things, depriving other members of the public of limited judicial resources.

In these circumstances, and given that Respondent has been undeterred by repeated warnings, sanctions, and attorney fee awards from multiple courts, this court is compelled to protect the courts and the public from further abuse by Respondent.

Accordingly, the court makes the order to show cause absolute and hereby enjoins Respondent from proceeding pro se in any pending or further litigation matters. Respondent, of course, may obtain access to the courts through attorneys of his choice.