Appellate Case: 21-1277 Document: 010110665252 Date Filed: 03/31/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 31, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 21-1277
(D.C. No. 1:21-CV-02042-LTB)
COMMISSIONER, SSA, (D. Colo.)
Defendant - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MORITZ, KELLY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Cedric Greene is a California resident who is subject to filing restrictions in
this and numerous other courts due to his abusive litigation history. In this appeal, he
challenges the dismissal of his pro se action for failure to comply with the district
court’s filing restrictions. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm
the district court’s judgment and deny Greene’s request to proceed on appeal without
prepayment of fees and costs.
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 21-1277 Document: 010110665252 Date Filed: 03/31/2022 Page: 2
I
This court had previously imposed filing restrictions on Greene, and,
recounting his abusive litigation history, we recently expanded those restrictions to
enjoin him from filing further pro se civil appeals in this court without obtaining
leave to do so. See Greene v. First to Serve, Inc., No. 21-1246; Greene v. 7-Eleven,
No. 21-1278, 2022 WL 386233, at *2-4 (10th Cir. Feb. 9, 2022). To the extent
Greene asks us to lift our filing restrictions, see Aplt. Br. at 2, his request is denied.
We consider this appeal, however, because our expanded filing restrictions apply
prospectively.
The district court imposed its filing restrictions on Greene because he had filed
some nine other actions, many of which were dismissed for improper venue, lack of
jurisdiction, or both. See Order Dismissing Action & Imposing Filing Restrictions at
5-6, Greene v. Off. of Comptroller, No. 19-CV-821 (D. Colo. June 13, 2019), ECF
No. 10. Greene appealed that decision, but he did not challenge the district court’s
filing restrictions, and we affirmed. See Greene v. Off. of Comptroller, 776 F. App’x
983, 984 (10th Cir. 2019).
Without complying with the district court’s filing restrictions, Greene initiated
the action underlying this appeal by filing a pro se pleading in the district court
seeking review of a social security benefits decision.1 Although he acknowledged he
1
Greene has twice previously appealed adverse decisions involving the same
subject matter, both resulting in dismissals for lack of prosecution. See Greene v.
Comm’r, No. 19-1467 (10th Cir. Nov. 19, 2020); Greene v. Comm’r, No. 19-1189
(10th Cir. Nov. 5, 2019).
2
Appellate Case: 21-1277 Document: 010110665252 Date Filed: 03/31/2022 Page: 3
is not a resident of Colorado, Greene suggested the district court should have waived
its venue requirements. He also asked to be “exonerated” from the district court’s
filing restrictions. R. at 3. The district court dismissed the case for failure to comply
with its filing restrictions, which the court declined to lift, and Greene appealed.
II
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Greene’s case. See
Gripe v. City of Enid, 312 F.3d 1184, 1188 (10th Cir. 2002) (reviewing sanction of
dismissal for failure to follow court order and rules for abuse of discretion). The
district court’s filing restrictions provided that if Greene wished to proceed pro se, he
was required to file a proposed pleading and seek leave to proceed pro se; he was
also required to provide the district court clerk with: A) a list of all his pending and
previous lawsuits filed in the District of Colorado and the status of all such lawsuits;
B) a statement of the issues and whether they had been previously raised; and C) a
notarized affidavit certifying that his arguments were not frivolous or made in bad
faith, that they were warranted by the law or a good-faith argument for alteration of
the law, that venue was proper, that the action was not brought for any improper
purpose, and that he would comply with all applicable court rules. See Order
Dismissing Action & Imposing Filing Restrictions at 6-7, Off. of Comptroller,
No. 19-CV-821. Greene did not comply with these requirements.
Greene asks that we “exonerate” him from the district court’s filing
restrictions, Aplt. Br. at 4, but if he wished to challenge those restrictions, he was
obligated to challenge them on appeal from the order that imposed them, see Werner
3
Appellate Case: 21-1277 Document: 010110665252 Date Filed: 03/31/2022 Page: 4
v. Utah, 32 F.3d 1446, 1448 (10th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (“[I]f petitioner disagrees
with the district court’s filing restrictions, his avenue for review is an appeal from the
order establishing the restrictions.”). He did not. See Off. of Comptroller,
776 F. App’x at 984. And he may not collaterally challenge them now in this appeal.
See Stine v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 506 F. App’x 846, 848 (10th Cir. 2013) (“[T]o
the extent Plaintiff is challenging the terms or scope of the filing restrictions, he
cannot collaterally attack those restrictions in this proceeding . . . .”). We thus affirm
the district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with its filing restrictions.
III
The district court’s judgment is affirmed. Greene’s request that we lift our
filing restrictions is denied. Because Greene fails to raise a non-frivolous argument,
his motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs and fees is denied as
well. See Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005).
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
4