Robinson v. State of New Mexico ( 2019 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 28, 2019
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
DEBORAH SANT ROBINSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 18-2179
(D.C. No. 1:18-CV-00665-WJ-LF)
THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO; (D. N.M.)
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION; US
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY;
GERALDINE SANCHEZ, Clerk of
Santa Fe County; ALAN WEBER,
The Mayor of Santa Fe; ST.
VINCENT CHRISTUS REGIONAL
HOSPITAL; LIFE LINK HOUSING
AND SERVICES; LOS ALAMOS
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS,
Board and Members; LOS ALAMOS
MEDICAL CENTER; UNIVERSITY
OF NEW MEXICO, UNM-LA; TIM
KELLER, The Mayor of
Albuquerque; LINDA STOVER,
Clerk of Bernalillo County;
JAIVAIR LNU, Mayor of Espanola;
MOISES MOLIAS; LOS ALAMOS
NATIONAL SECURITY LLC; NEW
MEXICO HEARINGS BUREAU,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
Oral argument would not materially help us to decide this appeal. We
have thus decided the appeal based on the plaintiff’s appellate brief and
the record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
_________________________________
Before HOLMES, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Ms. Deborah Sant Robinson appeals the dismissal of this case. We
dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
The federal statutes governing removal allow a defendant in a state
court action to remove a state court case to federal court in limited
circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446. Ms. Robinson removed five
cases to federal court. As the district court correctly explained, none of the
cases were removable. In two of the cases, Ms. Robinson was the plaintiff;
and plaintiffs are not entitled to remove cases to federal court. See
Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 5 F.3d 642, 643 (2d Cir. 1993) (per
curiam) (“No section [of the United States Code] provides for removal by a
plaintiff.”); see also 14C Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and
Procedure § 3730 (Rev. 4th. ed. 2018) (stating that “plaintiffs cannot
remove” cases to federal court). A third case was already in federal court.
And the other two cases were pending in administrative bodies rather than
a state court. See Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus. ex rel. Richardson v. U.S.
W. Commc’ns, Inc., 288 F.3d 414, 419 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We therefore hold
This 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. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
2
that 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) does not authorize removal of proceedings from
an administrative agency. . . .”).
Despite the explanation, Ms. Robinson appealed. She disregarded the
district court’s explanation and failed to provide a meaningful argument
for reversal. In the absence of a meaningful argument, we dismiss the
appeal as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); see Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (stating the standard for legal frivolousness).
Given the absence of a nonfrivolous argument for reversal, we also
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See DeBardeleben v. Quinlan,
937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991) (requiring inability to pay and a
reasoned, nonfrivolous argument in support of the issues on appeal). We
thus order Ms. Robinson to pay the filing fees of $505.00. 1
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
1
Ms. Robinson is to pay these fees to the Clerk of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico.
3