UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ CEDRIC GREENE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee.

––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––– CEDRIC GREENE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., Defendant - Appellee.

––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––– CEDRIC GREENE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant - Appellee.

––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––– CEDRIC GREENE, No. 18-3027 (D.C. No. 6:18-CV -01005-EFM-KGG) (D. Kan.)

No. 18-3040 (D.C. No. 6:18-CV -01014-EFM-GEB) (D. Kan.)

No. 18-3047 (D.C. No. 6:18-CV -01009-EFM-KGG) (D. Kan.) FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### September 20, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. TERRI HARRIS; VICKI BROACH, Defendants - Appellees.

––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––– CEDRIC GREENE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. FLORITTA GRAY, Defendant - Appellee. No. 18-3048 (D.C. No. 6:18-CV -01026-JTM-KGG) (D. Kan.)

No. 18-3049 (D.C. No. 6:18-CV -01027-EFM-GEB) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before EID , KELLY , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Plaintiff Cedric Greene filed fi ve pro se complaints in United States District Court for the District of Kansas, all of which were sua sponte dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lac k of venue or failure to state a claim. All the

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel ha s determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in t he determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is t herefore ordered submitted without oral ar gument. This order and judgme nt is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res j udicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, howev er, for its persuasive value c onsistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 a nd 10th Cir. R. 32.1.3 complaints were duplicitous of co mplaints Greene had previously filed in other federal district courts. Appear ing pro se, Greene now appeals these five Kansas dismissals. We exercise juris diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. On de novo review, we affirm. See Kay v. Bemis , 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Ci r. 2007) (noting that de novo review applies to dis missals 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)); Symes v. Harris , 472 F.3d 754, 757 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that de novo review applies to dismissal s for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction). We also sua sponte impose filing restrictions on Greene, subject to any objection he files wit hin ten days from the date of this decision. I. District of Kansa s Cases on Appeal Greene v. Sprint Nextel Corp. , No. 18-3027. Greene asserted a claim for neg ligent infliction of emotional d istress against Sprint Nextel Corporation (“Sp rint”), alleging it provided fals e information in California litigation. Greene said he filed his complaint in t he District of Kansas because California federal courts have sanctioned him as a vexa tious litigant. The district court dismissed his co mplaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e )(2)(B) for lack of jurisdiction because Greene’s co mplaint asserted the amount in controversy was $60,000, below the requisite $75,000. “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a party must show that complete diversity of citize nship exists between the adver se parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Symes , 472 F.3d at 758. Greene asserted this same claim against Sprint i n a complaint filed in the Dist rict of Utah, which was also dismissed for lack of juris diction because the amount in c ontroversy was only4 $60,000. See Greene v. Sprint Nextel Corp ., 690 F. App’x 614, 6 15 (10th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal). The Distr ict of Kansas imposed filing r estrictions on Greene based on the duplicative and frivol ous nature of this complaint as well as the other four complaints he filed in the D istrict of Kansas, discussed b elow. The district court gave Greene fourteen days to f ile an objection to the filing re strictions, but Greene did not file an objection. On appeal, Greene argues the dist rict court abused its discreti on in not allowing him to proceed in the Di strict of Kansas. But as the district court told Greene, a court must dismiss a m atter upon concluding that it l acks subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Subject-matter jurisd iction is a constitutional and statutory requirement that cannot be waived by the courts o r the parties. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee , 456 U.S. 694, 701-02 (1982). We affirm. Greene v. Greyhound Lines , No. 18-3040. Greene asserted a claim for neg ligent infliction of emotional d istress against Greyhound Lines, Inc . (Greyhound”), because his bus ticket was stolen prior to his trip and Greyhound refused to hel p him. Greene asserted this s ame claim against Greyhound in the Distric ts of Utah and Nevada. See Greene v. Greyhound Lines , No. 16-4132, slip op. at 2 (10th Cir. June 13, 2017) (unpublish ed order and judgment) (affirming dismissa l for lack of jurisdiction); Greene v. Greyhound Lines,
Inc ., No. 2:15-cv-00174-RFB-GWF, 20 15 WL 2168855, at *2-3 (D. Nev. May 7, 2015). In his Kansas c omplaint, he said he was filing his comp laint there because he5 was under filing restrictions in California and Utah and has fa mily ties in Wichita. The district court dismissed th e complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B ) for lack of venue and lack of personal jurisdicti on over Greyhound because Greene ’s complaint alleged no facts that Greyhound resided in Kansas or that any of the ev ents at issue occurred in Kansas. On appeal, Greene argues the dist rict court erred in not transf erring his complaint to a court where venue might exist. We find no abuse of discretion, given that the suit was filed in such an obviously improper venue, an d affirm. See Empr’s v. Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc ., 618 F.3d 1153, 1164 (1 0th Cir. 2010) (applying abuse of discretion revi ew to determination of venue) . We also deny Greene’s request for a n ew briefing schedule.
Greene v. Hous. Auth . of City of L.A. , No. 18-3047. Greene asserted a claim for neg ligence against the Housing Auth ority of the City of Los Angeles (“HACLA”), a sserting it failed to respond t o his complaints about his housing conditions. Green e asserted this same claim against HACLA in the District of Utah. Greene v. Hous. Auth . of City of L.A. , 690 F. App’x 617, 617-18 (10th Cir. 2017) (affirming dism issal for lack o f jurisdiction) . Greene’s Kansas complaint stated he was filing in that district because he was under filing restrictions in other states. The district court sua sponte dismissed the suit under § 1915(e)(2)(B) because Greene’s comp laint failed to allege any facts demonstra ting the court had jurisdiction or venue.6 Nothing in Greene’s a ppellate brief challenges the district cou rt’s dismissal. The district court correctly dis missed this complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and we affirm. We also deny Greene’s request to take judicial notice of a supplemental pleading he sought to file in district court.
Greene v. Harris , No. 18-3048. Greene filed a complaint against Terri Harris and Vicki Broach, but the nature of his allegations and cause of ac tion against them are unclear . He states that persons, not Harris or Broach, use d a deadly weapon against him in Hot Springs, Arkansas, then fled the scene. Greene does not explain how Har ris and Broach are connected to this incident. Green e filed a similar complaint a gainst Harris and Broach in the Districts of Arkansas and Utah. Greene v. Harris , 641 F. App’x 667, 668 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failu re to state a claim);
Greene v. Harris , No. 2:17-CV-276-DN-EJF, 2017 WL 7355302 (D. Utah July 14, 2017) (dismissing for lack of ju risdiction and venue). Greene’ s Kansas complaint stated he filed suit in that dis trict because other federal cou rts had shown no interest in resolving his issue. The dis trict court dismissed his compl aint under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to st ate a claim because Greene fai led to allege any discernable cause of action. The district court also denied Gr eene’s request for a change of venue. On appeal, Greene argues his comp laint could have been read to state a claim for intentional infliction of e motional distress and that the d istrict court should have transferred the case to another court. There are no factual al legations in his7 complaint that would plausibly a ssert an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, and the district court di d not abuse its discretion in d enying Greene’s change of venue request. We affirm. Greene v. Gray , No. 18-3049. Greene asserted claim s for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence against Floritta Gray , his California landlord, alle ging the rental property was in disrepair. Greene assert ed this same claim against Gray in a complaint filed in the District of Utah. Greene v. Gray , No. 2:16-CV-00804-JNP-EJF, 2017 WL 3705075, at *1-2 (D. Utah Aug. 28, 2017) (dismissing claim for lack of jurisdiction and venue). He said he filed his complaint in the District of Kansas because California courts had deemed him a vexatious litigant and abusi ve filer. The district court dismissed the suit under Ru le 12(h)(3), ruling Greene’s c omplaint alleged no facts to support the court’s pe rsonal jurisdiction over Gray, o r venue. On appeal, Greene argues the di strict court shoul d have transf erred this case to another court with proper venue . The district court correctly dismissed this complaint for lack o f jurisdiction and im proper venue and did n ot abuse its discretion in not transferring the case to another court. We conclude that this appeal is frivolous and th erefore deny Gr eene’s request to proceed in appeal No. 18- 3049 in forma pauperis. See DeBardeleben v. Quinlan , 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991) (requiring a reasoned and no nfrivolous argument to proceed on appeal without prepayment).8 II. Filing Restrictions This court and numerous district courts repeatedly have explain ed the jurisdictional and venue require ments to file a claim in a give n federal court to
Greene. 1 Greene has repeatedly ignored these explanations and simply r easserted the same meritless claims in another federal district. Given that the complaints and appeals at issue here are duplica tive of earlier actions dismis sed on the same grounds, Greene had to know that these a ppeals were patently frivolous. We cautioned Greene in January 20 18 that he was abusing the app ellate process and to carefully reflect on the legitimacy of any futur e appeals in this court.

1 This court has explained to Gr eene, in several orders affirmi ng dismissal of his complaints for lack of juri sdiction, the principles underly ing a federal court’s assertion of subject-matter jur isdiction. For example, we expl ained to him that: Federal courts “have an independ ent obligation to determine whe ther subject-matter jurisdiction exis ts, even in the absence of a ch allenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp ., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). A court must dismiss a case upon concluding that it lacks subject-matte r jurisdiction. Fed. R . Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The party asserting su bject-matter jurisdiction must overcome a pres umption against jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am ., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic statutory grants of fe deral subject-matter jurisdicti on are contained in 28 U.S. C. §§ 1331 and 1332 . Section 1331 provides for federal-question jurisdiction, § 1332 for diver sity of citizens hip jurisdiction. A party invokes § 1331 jurisdic tion by pleading a colorable cla im “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Bell v. Hood , 327 U.S. 678, 681–85 (1946). A par ty invokes § 1332 jurisdicti on by demonstrating that the parties have diverse citizenship and tha t the claim exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Arbaugh , 546 U.S. at 513. Sprint Nextel Corp ., 690 F. App’x at 614-15 (para llel citations omitted). The Districts of Utah and Kansas explained these same principles to Greene on at least sixteen occasions.9 Greene v. Direct TV, Inc. , No. 17-4145, 708 F. App’x 528, 529 (10th Cir. 2018) (affirming the dismissal of anot her case dismisse d for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). We told Greene th at litigants who abuse the app ellate process may be subject to filing restrictions. Id . Despite this warning, Gr eene filed the five frivolous appeals at issue here in April and May, 2018. “Federal courts have the inhere nt power to regulate the activit ies of abusive litigants by imposing carefully ta ilored restrictions under app ropriate circumstances.”
Ysais v. Richardson , 603 F.3d 1175, 1180 (10th Cir. 2010). Fili ng restrictions ar e appropriate where the litigant’ s lengthy and abusive history is set forth; the court provides guidelines as to what the litigant may do to obtain it s permission to file an action; and the litigant receives notice and an opportunity to oppose the court’s order before it is implemented. Id

. As set forth above, Greene’s f ilings in this court and the dis trict court reveal a pattern of duplicative, abusiv e, and frivolous litigation. Gre ene was granted the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in previous appeals t o this court, but he has abused that privilege. 2 Moreover, Greene has a lengt hy history of frivolous litigatio n in other courts, which has resulte d in filing restrictions impo sed on him in the Ninth

2 In addition to the numerous fri volous appeals in this circuit noted above, we recently determined that another of Greene’s appeals was frivol ous. Greene v. Access Serv. Inc ., No. 17-4150, 709 F. App’x 523 , 524 (10th Cir. 2018) (affirmi ng dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and denying in forma pauperis status based on the frivolous appeal).10 Circuit, the Districts of Kansas and Utah, as well as federal d istrict courts in California and Nevada. 3 Consequently, whether or not Gr eene pays a full filing fee, thi s court proposed to enjoin Greene from filing an appeal in this court that raise s the same or similar issues arising out of the same or similar set of facts and circ umstances as asserted in Tenth Circuit appeal Nos. 18-30 27; 18-3040;18-3047; 18-3048; 18 -3049; 17-4150; 17-4145; 16-4133; 16-4132; 16-41 48, or that argues or asserts a federal district court or this court should waive subjec t-matter jurisdiction. We emp hasize again to Greene that no court can waive subj ect-matter jurisdiction, Compagnie des Bauxites , 456 U.S. at 702, and any argument he makes requesting a court d o so is frivolous. Greene shall have ten days from the date o f this order and judg ment to file written objections, limited to fif teen pages, to t hese proposed restrictions. Unless this court orders otherwise upon review of any objections, the restrictions shall take effect twenty days from the date of this order and judgment and shall apply to any appeal filed by Green e after that time.

3 See In re: Greene , No. 08-80128 (9th Cir. Jun 2, 2011) (unpublished order imposing pre-filing restrictions); Greene v. Sprint Nextel Corp. , No. 18-1005-EFMKGG, 2018 WL 851345, at *2 (D. K an. Feb. 14, 2018) (same); Gray , 2017 WL 3705075, at *2 (same); Greene v. Dantzler , No. 2:15-CV-02096-GMN-PAL, 2017 WL 663672, at *4 (D. Nev. Feb. 15 , 2017) (noting that the Centr al District of California had declared Greene a vexatious litigant as a result of filing over 70 non-meritorious actions in that d istrict in an unpublished orde r, Greene v. Men’s Central Jail , No. 11–cv–02359 UA (SS) (C.D. C al. May 10, 2011) (unpublished order).11 All of the judgments are affirme d. Greene’s motion in No. 18-3 040 for a new briefing schedule and his motion in No. 18-3047 to take judicia l notice of a supplemental pleading are denied . Greene’s request to proceed in forma pauperis in No. 18-3049 is denied, and he is directed to immediately pay th e entire $505 appellate filing and docke ting fee in that appeal. Judge O’Brien concurs in the result.

Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge