Greene v. Inglewood Housing Authority ( 2019 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 15, 2019
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 18-1258
(D.C. No. 1:18-CV-01042-LTB)
INGLEWOOD HOUSING AUTHORITY; (D. Colo.)
CINDER ELLER-KIM BELL,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Cedric Greene filed a pro se complaint in the District of Colorado alleging
discrimination and defamation relating to his Section 8 housing in California. The
district court dismissed the complaint and the action without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue. Mr. Greene filed a motion under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to alter or amend the district court’s order, which the district
court denied. He appealed.
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
We review the district court’s denial of the Rule 59(e) motion for an abuse of
discretion. See Alpenglow Botanicals, LLC v. United States, 894 F.3d 1187, 1203
(10th Cir. 2018). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion. Mr. Greene failed to establish a basis for filing this action in the District of
Colorado.
We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of the Rule 59(e) motion for
substantially the reasons stated in its order of June 4, 2018. Because Mr. Greene
failed to demonstrate the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on appeal,
we deny his request to proceed in forma pauperis. See DeBardeleben v. Quinlan,
937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991) (“In order to succeed on his motion [to proceed in
forma pauperis], an appellant must show a financial inability to pay the required
filing fees and the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and
facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.”). He is directed to immediately pay
the entire $505 appellate filing and docketing fee.
Entered for the Court
Allison H. Eid
Circuit Judge
2