Appellate Case: 21-1447 Document: 010110705129 Date Filed: 07/05/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 5, 2022
_______________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant
No. 21-1447
v. (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-01613-LTB)
(D. Colo.)
CHARTER SPECTRUM, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee,
_______________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_______________________________________
Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
This appeal arises from the district court’s filing restrictions on
Mr. Cedric Greene. Mr. Greene sued, and the court dismissed the suit for
failure to comply with filing restrictions. He moved to reinstate the suit,
but the court denied that motion. Mr. Greene then moved for
*
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: 21-1447 Document: 010110705129 Date Filed: 07/05/2022 Page: 2
reconsideration, and the district court struck that motion. Mr. Greene
appeals the order striking his motion for reconsideration.
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 in the District of Colorado 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.
Id. at 7 (Order Dismissing Action and Imposing Filing Restrictions).
2. The district court dismissed Mr. Greene’s action.
The district court dismissed Mr. Greene’s action without prejudice
for failure to comply with some of these requirements. Mr. Greene
appealed this dismissal, and we affirmed. See Greene v. Denver Cnty.
1
Our court has also imposed filing restrictions on Mr. Greene. Since
then, Mr. Greene has filed at least 28 appeals. Greene v. First to Serve
Inc., Nos. 21-1246, -1278, 2022 WL 386233, at **2–3 (10th Cir. Feb. 9,
2022) (unpublished).
2
Appellate Case: 21-1447 Document: 010110705129 Date Filed: 07/05/2022 Page: 3
Court, Nos. 21-1051, -1010, -1245, 2021 WL 4272901 (10th Cir. Sept. 21,
2021).
Mr. Greene moved to reinstate the suit, but did not argue that he had
complied with the district court’s filing restrictions. Instead, he referred to
this Court’s ruling affirming the dismissal. There we observed:
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 asserts a federal district court or this court should
waive subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Id. at *1 (10th Cir. Sept. 21, 2021) (quoting Greene v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
750 F. App'x. 661, 666–67 (10th. Cir. 2018) (unpublished)).
We added that “[n]one of the present appeals appear to fall within the
scope of this court’s filing restrictions.” Id.
Because our filing restrictions do not apply to Mr. Greene’s appeal,
he argued that the district court should not have applied its own filing
restrictions. The district court then rejected this argument.
3. We affirm the district court’s order striking Mr. Greene’s motion
for reconsideration.
In this appeal, Mr. Greene doesn’t
challenge the district court’s conclusion that its own filing
restrictions remain valid or
contend that he complied with the district court’s restrictions.
3
Appellate Case: 21-1447 Document: 010110705129 Date Filed: 07/05/2022 Page: 4
Instead, he asks this Court to “make some adjustments to the District of
Colorado’s restriction order.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 6.
In other appeals involving Mr. Greene, we’ve pointed out that he
“was required to challenge [the restrictions] in his appeal of the order that
imposed them.” Greene v. First to Serve Inc., Nos. 21-1249, -1278, 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, -1070 & -1245, 2021 WL 4272901, at *2 (10th Cir.
Sept. 21, 2021) (unpublished).
Given our prior opinions upholding the filing restrictions challenged
by Mr. Greene, we conclude that the district court did not err in ordering
dismissal. We thus affirm the district court’s ruling striking his motion to
reconsider the denial of his motion for reinstatement.
4. Mr. Greene cannot 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 only 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
nonfrivolous argument for reversal. So we deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
* * *
4
Appellate Case: 21-1447 Document: 010110705129 Date Filed: 07/05/2022 Page: 5
We affirm the order striking Mr. Greene’s motion to reconsider. We
deny his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
5