¶1Walter N. Harlow, pro se.
¶2Mark J. Peschel, Minneapolis, Minn., and Peter M. Ackerberg, St. Paul, Minn., for appellees.
¶3Before BOWMAN and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge.
¶5Walter N. Harlow appeals from the district court’s1 dismissal of his suit, discharge of his Notice of Lis Pendens, and award of costs and attorney’s fees. We agree with the well-reasoned opinion of the district court and affirm. See 8th Cir.R. 14.
¶6We also find this appeal frivolous. A pro se litigant has a duty to determine whether his claim is worth pursuing and may not “prostitute the process of the court.” Galvan v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co., 831 F.2d 804, 805-06 (8th Cir.1987). Harlow has admitted he has consulted with many attorneys who refused to go forward with this and many other suits he has initiated. Accordingly, we award attorney’s fees and double costs against Harlow to each appel-lee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1912; Fed.R.App.P. 38. Applications for attorney’s fees shall *188be filed within 20 days of the date of this order.