Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-19-04122/USCOURTS-ca10-19-04122-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: EDSON G. GARDNER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant.

No. 19-4122

(D.C. No. 2:19-RF-00559)

(D. Utah)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before CARSON, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Edson Gardner attempts to appeal the district court’s refusal to file his 

complaint. Gardner’s history of filing frivolous and duplicative actions compelled 

the Chief Judge of the District of Utah to designate him a restricted litigant. Under 

that designation, the district court imposed the following restrictions limiting 

Gardner’s ability to file actions: 

(1) new complaints sent to the court for filing will be collected by the 

Clerk of Court and sent to a Magistrate Judge for review; (2) the 

Magistrate Judge will review the complaint to determine whether it is 

meritorious, duplicative or frivolous; (3) if the Magistrate Judge 

determines that the complaint is without merit, duplicative or frivolous, 

the Magistrate Judge will forward the complaint to the Chief Judge for 

further review; and (4) only with the consent of the Chief Judge will the 

complaint be filed.

Gardner v. Uintah Cty. Clerk-Auditor Michael Wilkins, No. 2:15-mc-00047-

DN (D. Utah Mar. 23, 2015). Four years after the district court imposed these 

restrictions, Gardner attempted to file the proposed complaint. A Magistrate

Judge reviewed the complaint and found it duplicative or legally frivolous. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 20, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 19-4122 Document: 010110306534 Date Filed: 02/20/2020 Page: 1
2

The Chief Judge then reviewed the proposed complaint and directed that it not 

be filed. Gardner appealed, arguing that his claims are not moot. 

We lack jurisdiction to hear Gardner’s appeal. The district court never 

filed the proposed complaint and thus never accepted jurisdiction over 

Gardner’s case. Gardner therefore has no right to an appeal. Cedrins v. Cent. 

N.M. Cmty. Coll. (CNM), 383 F. App’x 809, 811 (10th Cir. 2010); Shough v. 

Vigil, 30 F. App’x 781, 783 (10th Cir. 2002); Raiser v. York, 415 F. App’x 

895, 897 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished dispositions cited only for their 

persuasive value).

1

Because we lack jurisdiction, we DISMISS the appeal. We also DENY 

all outstanding motions and requests for relief as moot. 

Entered for the Court

Joel M. Carson III

Circuit Judge

 1 We note that Gardner fails to request mandamus relief, let alone show that 

such extraordinary relief is appropriate. Werner v. State of Utah, 32 F.3d 1446, 1447 

(10th Cir. 1994). Thus, we decline to construe his appeal as a petition for writ of 

mandamus. 

Appellate Case: 19-4122 Document: 010110306534 Date Filed: 02/20/2020 Page: 2