Greene v. Frontier Airlines ( 2022 )

Appellate Case: 21-1395 Document: 010110652136 Date Filed: 03/03/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 3, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant
No. 21-1395
v. (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-00385-LTB)
(D. Colo.)
FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee,
_______________________________________
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant
No. 21-1397
v. (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-00330-LTB)
(D. Colo.)
DENVER COUNTY COURT;
RODEWAY INN/OYO HOTEL,
Defendants - Appellees,
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
*
Oral argument would not help us decide the appeal, so we have
decided the appeal based on the record and Mr. Greene’s briefs. See Fed.
R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if
otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
Appellate Case: 21-1395 Document: 010110652136 Date Filed: 03/03/2022 Page: 2
_________________________________
These appeals arise from the district court’s filing restrictions on Mr.
Greene. Mr. Greene sued, and the court dismissed the suits for failure to
comply with filing restrictions. He moved to reinstate the suits, but the
court denied these motions. Mr. Greene appeals the denial of his motions,
and we affirm.
1. The district court imposed filing restrictions on Mr. Greene.
The district court imposed filing restrictions on Mr. Greene. See
Greene v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, No. 19-cv-00821-
LTB, (D. Colo. June 13, 2019), ECF No. 10. 1 Under these restrictions, Mr.
Green must
(1) file a motion requesting leave to file pro se, including
(a) a list of all pending cases and the current status of each
one,
(b) a statement of the legal issues he plans to raise in the new
proceeding, addressing whether he has raised them before
in any federal court,
(c) a notarized affidavit certifying that his arguments are not
frivolous and that he will follow court rules, and
(2) submit the new proposed pleading.
1
Our court has also imposed filing restrictions on Mr. Greene. Since
then, Mr. Greene has filed 28 appeals. Greene v. First to Serve Inc., 2022
WL 386233, at *2 (10th Cir. Feb. 9, 2022) (unpublished).
2
Appellate Case: 21-1395 Document: 010110652136 Date Filed: 03/03/2022 Page: 3
Id. at 7 (Order Dismissing Action and Imposing Filing Restrictions,
Greene). In our two suits, the district court ordered dismissal for failure to
comply with some of these requirements.
Mr. Greene doesn’t argue that he complied with the filing
restrictions. He instead appears to question the fairness of the filing
restrictions, characterizing them as a ban. But he doesn’t explain this
characterization or say why a ban would be improper. Regardless of the
validity of the filing restrictions, we’ve pointed out that Mr. Greene “was
required to challenge them in his appeal of the order that imposed them.”
Greene v. First to Serve Inc., 2022 WL 386233, at *2 (10th Cir. Feb. 9,
2022) (unpublished). And we’ve elsewhere upheld these filing restrictions.
E.g., Greene v. Denver Cty. Court, Nos. 21-1051, 21-1070, & 21-1245,
2021 WL 4272901, at *2 (10th Cir. Sept. 21, 2021) (unpublished). Given
our prior decision upholding the filing restrictions, we affirm the denials
of Mr. Greene’s motions for reinstatement.
2. Mr. Greene is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.
Though the filing fee is $505, Mr. Greene seeks leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. Because he can’t afford the filing fee, we can grant Mr.
Greene in forma pauperis status upon the assertion of a nonfrivolous
argument. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Rolland v. Primesource Staffing,
L.L.C., 497 F.3d 1077, 1079 (10th Cir. 2007). But he hasn’t presented a
3
Appellate Case: 21-1395 Document: 010110652136 Date Filed: 03/03/2022 Page: 4
nonfrivolous argument for reversal. So we deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
* * *
We affirm the denial of Mr. Greene’s motions for reinstatement and
deny his motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
4