UNITED STATES COU RT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________ _______________ DEBORAH SANT ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; GERALDINE SANCHEZ, Clerk of Santa Fe County; ALAN WEBER, The Mayor of S anta 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. No. 18-2179 (D.C. No. 1:18- CV-00665-WJ-LF) (D. N.M.)

__________________ _______________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

* Oral argument would no t materially help us t o decide this appea l. We have thus de cided 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). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 28, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 __________________ _______________ Before HOLMES , BACHARACH , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

__________________ _______________ Ms. Deborah Sant Robi nson appeals the dism issal of this case. W e dismiss the appeal as frivolous. The federal statutes gov erning removal allow a defendant in a state
court action to remove a state court case to federal co urt in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446. Ms. Robinson removed five cases to federal court. As the di strict court correctly explain ed, none of the cases were removable. I n two of the cases, Ms. Robinson was the plaintiff; and plaintiffs are n ot entitled to remove cases to federal cour t. See Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co. , 5 F.3d 642, 643 ( 2d Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (“No section [of the Un ited States Code] provides for r emoval by a plaintiff.”); see also 14C Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and
Procedure § 3730 (Rev. 4th. ed. 2018) (stat ing that “plai ntiffs cannot remove” cases to federal court). A third case was already in fe deral court. And the other two cases were pend ing in administrative bodies r ather than

a state court. See Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus . ex rel. Richar dson v. U.S. W. Commc’ns, Inc. , 288 F.3d 414, 419 ( 9th Cir. 2002) (“We therefore hold

This order and judgme nt does not constitut e binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and colla teral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive valu e if otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. A pp. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32 .1(A).3 that 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a) does not authorize removal of proceedi ngs from an administrativ e agency. . . .”). Despite the explanation, Ms. Rob inson appealed. She disregarded the district court’s explanation and failed to provide a meaningful argument for reversal. In the ab sence of a meaningfu l argument, we dismi ss 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 standa rd for legal frivol ousness). Given the absence of a nonfrivolous argument for reversal, we a lso 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, nonfrivolou s argument in support o f the issues on app eal). We thus order Ms. Robinson to pa y the filing fees of $505.00. 1

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

1 Ms. Robinson is to pay these f ees to the Clerk of the U.S. Di strict Court for the Distri ct of New Mexico.