FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 2, 2020
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
GRETCHEN CARLY BERG,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v. No. 20-4046
(D.C. No. 2:19-rf-00992)
MIGUEL DAVID GEDO, (D. Utah)
Respondent - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges.**
_________________________________
Respondent-Appellant Miguel David Gedo appeals from the district court’s
restricted-filer case review order declining to open a new district court case. 1 R. 3.
Mr. Gedo had been placed on filing restrictions such that the district court will not
file his pleadings if they are duplicative or are legally frivolous. Id. Here, Mr. Gedo
attempted to remove a Utah state district court case in which his former wife sought a
protective order against him.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
**
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.
On appeal, Mr. Gedo argues that removal of the underlying state-court case
was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (civil rights removal) and that (1) he is not
represented by counsel, (2) application of the restricted filing order deprives him of
due process, (3) the restricted filing order deprives him of his rights under the Utah
Constitution, (4) the state court has violated 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) by continuing with
proceedings. We have reviewed the matter and conclude that the federal district
court plainly had no removal jurisdiction over this domestic relations matter. See
Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975) (requirements for removal under
§ 1443). The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying its restricted filing
order. See Crownhart v. Graham, 809 F. App’x 553, 554 (10th Cir. 2020) (“A
district court’s application of a previously-imposed filing restriction is reviewed for
abuse of discretion.”).
AFFIRMED. We DENY Mr. Gedo’s application to proceed without prepayment
of fees and remind him that he is responsible for any unpaid balance of the appellate
filing fee.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
2