UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

CEDRIC GREENE; VALERIE 

STEPHEN, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

v. 

ACCESS SERVICES, INC., 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 19-1447 

(D.C. No. 1:19-CV-02050-LTB) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 This appeal grew out of Mr. Cedric Greene’s unsuccessful state-court 

suit. Mr. Greene and his common-law wife, Ms. Valerie Stephen, did not 

like the result and moved in federal district court for review of the state 

appellate decision. The federal district court “closed” the action because 

* Oral argument would not materially help us to decide this appeal. We 

have thus decided the appeal based on the appellate briefs and the record 

on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

 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). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

June 5, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

Mr. Greene was subject to filing restrictions. Mr. Greene and Ms. Stephen 

appeal and seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

We dismiss Mr. Greene’s appeal and deny his motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. For Ms. Stephen, we remand with instructions 

to dismiss the action based on the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction 

and grant her application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

1. Mr. Greene’s Appeal 

Mr. Greene’s present appeal grew out of an earlier appeal involving 

an injury to Ms. Stephen. Ms. Stephen sued in state court, but her suit was 

dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed in the state appellate court. 

Though Mr. Greene was not a party to the state-court suit, he sued in 

federal district court to overturn the state-court decisions. The federal 

district court dismissed the suit, reasoning that it lacked subject-matter 

jurisdiction to overturn state-court decisions. 

Undaunted by that ruling, Mr. Greene started over, filing a new suit 

in federal district court to overturn the unfavorable decisions in state 

court. The federal district court closed his case, and he wants us to 

consider that ruling. But we can consider his appellate argument only if 

Mr. Greene has satisfied our own filing restrictions. See Greene v. Sprint 

Nextel Corp., 750 F. App’x 661, 666-67 (10th Cir. 2018) (imposing filing 

restrictions). These restrictions prohibited Mr. Greene from appealing a 

case involving issues similar to those arising out of the facts and 
3 

circumstances in a series of earlier appeals, including one (Case No. 17-

4150) that involved the same incident involved here. Id. 

Mr. Greene’s new arguments are just like the ones he made in Case 

No. 17-4150, so he hasn’t satisfied our filing restrictions. Given his failure 

to satisfy our filing restrictions, we dismiss his appeal. 

2. Ms. Stephen’s Appeal 

But Mr. Greene is not the only appellant. Ms. Stephen has also 

appealed the dismissal, and she is not subject to filing restrictions. So she 

is free to sue and to appeal. Even so, the federal district court could 

consider her argument only if subject-matter jurisdiction existed. It didn’t. 

Ms. Stephen sued in federal court to obtain a ruling that the state 

courts had erred in its rulings. When an appellant seeks reversal based on 

an error in state court, the federal district court lacks jurisdiction under the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. 

Corp, 544 U.S. 280, 283-84 (2005) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine is 

jurisdictional); Miller v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. (In re Miller), 666 

F.3d 1255, 1261 (10th Cir. 2012) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to 

challenges involving the correctness of a state-court judgment). 

Because the federal district court lacked jurisdiction, the court 

shouldn’t have just “closed” Ms. Stephen’s case. The court should have 

dismissed the case without prejudice. Garner v. Gonzales, 167 F. App’x 

21, 24 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished); Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 
4 

434 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2006) (noting that dismissal for lack of 

jurisdiction must be without prejudice). 

3. Motions for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 

Appellants must ordinarily prepay the $505 filing fee. But when they 

can’t afford prepayment, they can proceed only by obtaining leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). But federal law 

prohibits leave to proceed in forma pauperis when the appeal is not taken 

in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), see Clark v. Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 

711, 714–15 (10th Cir. 2006). Ms. Stephen has appealed in good faith, but 

Mr. Greene hasn’t. 

Mr. Greene has abused the litigation process, resulting in filing 

restrictions in both federal district court and in our court. His prior 

litigation experience in these courts should have revealed his inability to 

appeal on precisely the same ground brought in a prior federal appeal. 

But we don’t question Ms. Stephen’s good faith. She isn’t subject to 

filing restrictions, and the district court didn’t address her separate claim 

or explain why her case should be closed. The federal district court lacked 

subject-matter jurisdiction over her claim, but she is a layperson and could 

understandably lack familiarity with the constraints on subject-matter 

jurisdiction. 

Mr. Greene’s prior federal suit was dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction, but Ms. Stephen was not a party to that suit. So we 
5 

have no reason to question Ms. Stephen’s good faith despite the clear 

absence of subject-matter jurisdiction in district court. Given Ms. 

Stephen’s good faith and inability to prepay the filing fee, we grant her 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Entered for the Court 

 Robert E. Bacharach 

 Circuit Judge