UNITED STATES COURT 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 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. 

No. 18-2179 

(D.C. No. 1:18-CV-00665-WJ-LF) 

(D. N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

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). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

June 28, 2019

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

_________________________________ 

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). 
3 

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.