Court Opinion

ID: 9377732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 17:00:43.2557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:16.057980
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-3213         Document: 010110823266   Date Filed: 03/08/2023   Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     Tenth Circuit

                                 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       March 8, 2023
                             _________________________________
                                                                         Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                             Clerk of Court
  STATE OF KANSAS,

         Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                    Nos. 22-3213 & 22-3230
                                                 (D.C. Nos. 5:22-CV-03214-JWL-JPO &
  CRAIG IVAN GILBERT,                                  5:22-CV-03216-JWL-JPO)
                                                                (D. Kan.)
         Defendant - Appellant.
  ------------------------------------------
  CRAIG IVAN GILBERT,

         Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                     Nos. 22-3229 & 22-3249
                                                  (D.C. No. 5:22-CV-03217-JWL-JPO &
  STATE OF KANSAS; COUNTY OF                            5:22-CV-03265-JWL-JPO)
  FORD; CITY OF DODGE CITY,                                     (D. Kan.)
  KANSAS; ROGER SOLDAN;
  JOHN/JANE DOES,

         Defendants - Appellees.

                             _________________________________

                                 ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                             _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and EID, Circuit Judges.

        *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). These cases are
 therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not
 binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
 collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-3213     Document: 010110823266       Date Filed: 03/08/2023     Page: 2

                          _________________________________

       Appellant Craig Ivan Gilbert, a Kansas state prisoner appearing pro se, appeals

 the dismissal of four cases that he attempted to remove from Kansas state courts to

 federal district court. Two of the appeals, No. 22-3213 and No. 22-3230, involve

 Gilbert’s attempts to remove closed criminal cases. The other two appeals,

 No. 22-3229 and No. 22-3249, involve Gilbert’s attempts to remove closed state

 habeas cases that he filed. Exercising jurisdiction over these appeals pursuant to

 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the decisions of the district court.

                                             I

                             Appeal Nos. 22-3213 and 22-3230

       Appeal No. 22-3213 arose out of a case that Gilbert initiated on September 27,

 2022. Gilbert did so by filing in the United States District Court for the District of

 Kansas a pro se pleading that he labeled a “Notice of Removal.” ROA at 3. The

 pleading purported to be removing a closed, but unspecified, 1999 criminal case from

 Ellsworth County, Kansas. The pleading also purported to pose what Gilbert

 described as a “federal question,” i.e., “whether a closed 1999 case can be removed

 to [United States District Court] when obstructive barriers prevented” the United

 States District Court for the District of Kansas, in a 2003 federal habeas action, from

 “review[ing] [his 1999 Kansas state] conviction and term of involuntary servitude.”

 Id. (capitalization omitted).

       Appeal No. 22-3230 likewise arose out of a case that Gilbert initiated on

 September 27, 2022, by filing a pleading titled “Notice of Removal.” ROA at 3.

                                             2
Appellate Case: 22-3213    Document: 010110823266           Date Filed: 03/08/2023   Page: 3

 That pleading purported to be removing a closed, but unspecified, 1995 criminal case

 from Ford County, Kansas. Gilbert posed a similar “federal question” in his

 pleading, i.e., “[w]hether a closed 1995 case, 1998 conviction date imposed 2003 can

 be removed to” federal court. Id. (capitalization omitted).

       The district court dismissed both cases on September 29, 2022. The district

 court noted that 28 U.S.C. § 1443 authorizes a state criminal defendant, in very

 limited circumstances, to remove his or her case to federal district court. The district

 court concluded, however, that both of Gilbert’s cases failed to satisfy the substantive

 and procedural requirements for removal pursuant to § 1443. Although the district

 court noted that an order for summary remand is typically the proper course of action

 when a state criminal case has been improperly removed to federal court, see

 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4), it concluded that dismissal was the proper course of action in

 both of these cases because there was no court to which they could be remanded.

 The district court entered final judgment in both cases on September 29, 2022.

       Gilbert moved for reconsideration in both cases, but the district court denied

 those motions as meritless. Gilbert filed a timely notice of appeal in each case, and

 has since filed an opening appellate brief in each case.

       After reviewing Gilbert’s appellate briefs and the record on appeal in both

 cases, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing these cases. See

 Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Boulder Cty. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., 25 F.4th 1238,

 1250 (10th Cir. 2022) (applying de novo standard of review to district court’s ruling

 on the propriety of removal). As the district court correctly noted, 28 U.S.C. § 1455

                                            3
Appellate Case: 22-3213      Document: 010110823266       Date Filed: 03/08/2023    Page: 4

 outlines the “Procedure for removal of criminal prosecutions” from state court and

 provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] notice of removal of a criminal prosecution shall

 be filed not later than 30 days after the arraignment in the State Court, or at any time

 before trial, whichever is earlier.” 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(1). The statute further

 provides, in relevant part, that “[a] notice of removal of a criminal prosecution shall

 include all grounds for such removal,” and that “[a] failure to state grounds that exist

 at the time of the filing of the notice shall constitute a waiver of such grounds.” Id.

 § 1455(b)(2). To be sure, the statute affords a federal district court with authority, in

 the event of “good cause shown,” to effectively modify these requirements. Id.

 § 1455(b)(1), (2). Here, however, Gilbert’s notices of removal were both untimely

 under § 1455(b)(1), failed to offer any grounds for removal as required by

 § 1455(b)(2), and also offered no basis upon which the district court could conclude

 that good cause had been shown to modify the statutory requirements. Further,

 because the criminal cases that Gilbert attempted to remove from state court were

 closed, the district court correctly concluded that it had no choice but to dismiss the

 cases.

                              Appeal Nos. 22-3229 and 22-3249

          Like the first two appeals, Appeal No. 22-3229 arose out of a case that Gilbert

 initiated on September 27, 2022, by filing in the United States District Court for the

 District of Kansas a pro se pleading that he labeled a “Notice of Removal.” ROA

 at 3. The pleading purported to be removing a closed, but unspecified, state habeas

 case that Gilbert filed in 2003 in Ford County, Kansas, and that he subsequently

                                              4
Appellate Case: 22-3213    Document: 010110823266         Date Filed: 03/08/2023    Page: 5

 appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals. The notice of removal posed what Gilbert

 described as a “federal question,” i.e., “whether a closed 2004 Judicial Opinion &

 Conviction case can be removed to [United States District Court] when obstructive

 barriers Denied Right to Review Court Appointed Appellate Counsel After Docketing

 Brief.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

       Appeal No. 22-3249 arose out of a case that Gilbert initiated on October 19,

 2022, by filing a pleading titled “Notice of Removal.” ROA at 3. The pleading

 stated that Gilbert was removing a “Closed Writ of Habeas Corpus Case” that he filed

 in 2021 in the Saline County (Kansas) District Court. Id. The pleading further stated

 that the state habeas case concerned “conditions of confinement.” Id.

       The district court dismissed both cases for two reasons. First, the district court

 noted that 28 U.S.C. § 1441 authorizes a defendant in a civil action brought in state

 court to remove the case to federal district court, but does not provide for removal by

 a plaintiff. Second, the district court noted that Gilbert failed to provide any

 authority for removing a closed case.

       Gilbert timely appealed both dismissal orders1 and has since filed opening

 appellate briefs in both appeals.

       After reviewing Gilbert’s appellate briefs and the records on appeal, we

 conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing these cases. As the district

       1
         In Appeal No. 22-3229, Gilbert filed a motion to reconsider and for
 appointment of a special prosecutor. The motion, however, was nonsensical and did
 not address either of the grounds stated by the district court for dismissing the case.
 The district court summarily denied the motion.
                                             5
Appellate Case: 22-3213     Document: 010110823266        Date Filed: 03/08/2023        Page: 6

 court correctly noted in dismissing the cases, “[t]he right to remove a state court case

 to federal court is clearly limited to defendants.” Am. Int’l Underwriters

 (Philippines), Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 1253, 1260 (9th Cir. 1988).

 Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) states that “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly

 provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the

 district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the

 defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C.

 § 1441(a) (emphasis added). Thus, Gilbert lacked statutory authority to remove the

 cases. Moreover, Gilbert’s pleadings indicate that both cases have been closed in the

 Kansas state courts, and, as the district court noted, there is no federal authority

 whatsoever for removing a closed case from state court to federal court.

                                             II

       We AFFIRM the judgments entered by the district court in Appeal No.

 22-3213, Appeal No. 22-3229, Appeal No. 22-3230, and Appeal No. 22-3249. We

 DENY Gilbert’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Mary Beck Briscoe
                                              Circuit Judge

                                             6