Cedric Greene v. Denver County Court; Rodeway Inn/oyo Hotel

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DENVER COUNTY COURT;
RODEWAY INN/OYO HOTEL,
Defendants - Appellees.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARTER SPECTRUM, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 21-1051
(D.C. No. 1:21-CV-00330-LTB)
(D. Colorado)
No. 21-1070
(D.C. No. 1:21-CV-00385-LTB)
(D. Colorado)
No. 21-1245
(D.C. No. 1:21-CV-01613-LTB)
(D. Colorado)
_________________________________
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
September 21, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-1051 Document: 010110579506 Date Filed: 09/21/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 6 --

2
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, KELLY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Pro se litigant, Cedric Greene, appeals the district court’s dismissal of three
civil actions he filed in the District of Colorado, one against the Denver County
Court and additional defendants, one against Frontier Airlines, Inc., and the other
against Charter Spectrum, Inc. The district court dismissed all three suits without
prejudice, noting that it has permanently enjoined Mr. Greene from filing pro se civil
actions in the District of Colorado without first complying with the court’s filing
restrictions. Because Mr. Greene did not comply with the district court’s restrictions,
the court dismissed his complaints.
Mr. Greene is subject to filing restrictions in this court, in addition to those
imposed by the district court. On September 20, 2018, we entered an order and
judgment enjoining Mr. Greene “from filing an appeal in this court that raises the
same or similar issues arising out of the same or similar set of facts and
circumstances as asserted in Tenth Circuit Appeal Nos. 18-3027; 18-3040; 18-3047;
18-3048; 18-3049; 17-4150; 17-4145; 16-4133; 16-4132; 16-4148, or that argues or
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.
Appellate Case: 21-1051 Document: 010110579506 Date Filed: 09/21/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 6 --

3
asserts a federal district court or this court should waive subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Greene v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 750 F. App’x. 661, 666–67 (10th. Cir. 2018)
(unpublished).
None of the present appeals appear to fall within the scope of this court’s
filing restrictions. We accordingly will consider Mr. Greene’s motions to proceed in
forma pauperis on his three appeals. Because the district court denied Mr. Greene’s
application to proceed IFP and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good
faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), Mr. Greene is not entitled IFP status unless
we conclude that at least one of his appeals contains a nonfrivolous argument. See
Rolland v. Primesource Staffing, 497 F.3d 1077, 1079 (10th Cir. 2007).
Mr. Greene, however, fails to present a nonfrivolous argument in any of his
appeals. On appeal, Mr. Greene does not address the basis of the district court’s
decision dismissing his cases without prejudice—Mr. Greene’s failure to comply
with the district court’s filing restrictions. Instead, he presses the merits of his
underlying claims as a reason for the district court’s filing restrictions to be set aside.
Regardless of the merits of his current cases, Mr. Greene remains subject to the
district court’s filing restrictions. Because he makes no attempt to dispute the district
court’s conclusion that he failed to comply with those restrictions, his arguments
before this court are frivolous.
Mr. Greene’s argument on appeal that his cases present “no jurisdictional
defects” suggests he may have confused the filing restrictions imposed by this court
with those imposed by the district court. To be clear, Mr. Greene failed to meet the
Appellate Case: 21-1051 Document: 010110579506 Date Filed: 09/21/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 6 --

4
district court’s restrictions because he failed to file a motion for leave to proceed pro
se before filing the actions in the district court. Although Mr. Greene is also subject
to restrictions imposed by this court, none of the appeals at issue appear to be in
violation of our own filing restrictions. That distinction, however, does not lessen
Mr. Greene’s burden to proceed IFP on appeal. To do so, Mr. Greene must advance a
nonfrivolous argument in this court. He has failed to meet that burden.
First, Mr. Greene has not advanced any nonfrivolous argument challenging the
district court’s ruling that he failed to comply with that court’s filing restrictions.
Indeed, he makes no attempt to address the basis for the district court’s order
dismissing his district court actions. Second, Mr. Greene has similarly failed to
present any nonfrivolous basis for this court to set aside the District of Colorado’s
filing restrictions. Federal courts have “the inherent power to regulate the activities
of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate
circumstances.” Sieverding v. Colo. Bar Ass’n., 469 F.3d 1340, 1343 (10th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotations omitted). Thus, even if a “small claims division . . . substantiated
Mr. Greene’s claims,” as Mr. Greene argues, or if his claims were meritorious on
some other grounds, Mr. Greene could file a pro se claim in the District of Colorado
only if he met the district court’s filing restrictions. Case No. 21-1070 ROA Vol. 1 at
5. Mr. Greene’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis are therefore denied.
Our ruling on IFP status provides sufficient basis to dismiss these appeals. But
even were Mr. Greene permitted to proceed IFP, he could not prevail on the merits.
We review a district court's application of a previously imposed filing restriction for
Appellate Case: 21-1051 Document: 010110579506 Date Filed: 09/21/2021 Page: 4

-- 4 of 6 --

5
abuse of discretion. See In re Peterson, 338 F. App’x 763, 764 (10th Cir. 2009)
(unpublished). Here, the court did not abuse its discretion in either case because
Mr. Greene failed to abide by the district court’s restrictions, specifically failing to
file a motion requesting leave to file a pro se action. Whether Mr. Greene’s claims
are meritorious is irrelevant to his failure to abide by the reasonable restrictions set
out by the district court. And that failure is sufficient to support the district court’s
dismissal of all these actions without prejudice.
Finally, we note Mr. Greene’s conduct here is not unique. He has repeatedly
failed to follow the filing restrictions imposed by both this court and the District of
Colorado. See Greene v. Access Servs., Inc., 808 F. App’x 685 (10th Cir. 2020)
(unpublished); Greene v. Office of Comptroller of Currency, 776 F. App’x 983 (10th
Cir. 2019) (unpublished); Greene v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 750 F. App’x at 666 (“We
told Greene that litigants who abuse the appellate process may be subject to filing
restrictions. Despite this warning, Greene filed the five frivolous appeals at issue here
in April and May, 2018.”) (citations omitted). Mr. Greene’s abusive litigation tactics
have also resulted in him being subject to filing restrictions “in the Ninth Circuit, the
Districts of Kansas and Utah, as well as federal district courts in California and
Nevada.” Greene v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 750 F. App’x at 666.
Given this pattern of behavior, and the resultant drain on judicial resources,
this court warns Mr. Greene that additional filings of this nature will result in further
filing restrictions, including a per se prohibition on appealing in forma pauperis the
Appellate Case: 21-1051 Document: 010110579506 Date Filed: 09/21/2021 Page: 5

-- 5 of 6 --

6
dismissal of cases in which he makes no effort to comply with the district court’s
filing restrictions.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Greene’s
actions. We additionally DENY Mr. Greene’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal and DENY all other pending motions.
Entered for the Court
Carolyn B. McHugh
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 21-1051 Document: 010110579506 Date Filed: 09/21/2021 Page: 6

-- 6 of 6 --