Court Opinion

ID: 9947724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 16:02:26.40763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:27:19.676391
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-4155     Document: 010111009913       Date Filed: 03/05/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           March 5, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  In re: EDSON G. GARDNER,                                    No. 23-4155
                                                        (D.C. No. 2:23-RF-00186)
        Plaintiff – Appellant.                                 (D. Utah)

                          _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                     _________________________________

        Plaintiff Edson Gardner sought to remove to the district court a Utah state

 criminal proceeding. The district court, acting pursuant to filing restrictions that

 were imposed on Gardner in 2015, reviewed Gardner’s proposed notice of removal

 and related materials that Gardner submitted for filing, concluded that it would lack

 subject matter jurisdiction over Gardner’s proposed notice of removal, and

 consequently ordered Gardner’s proposed notice of removal and related materials

 returned to him unfiled. Gardner now appeals from the district court’s decision.

 Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the decision of the

 district court.

        *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is 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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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: 23-4155    Document: 010111009913        Date Filed: 03/05/2024    Page: 2

                                             I

       Gardner has a documented history of filing frivolous actions in the United

 States District Court for the District of Utah. Enough so that on March 23, 2015, a

 judge in the District of Utah who was assigned one of Gardner’s cases entered an

 order imposing filing restrictions on Gardner. See In re Edson Gardner, Case No.

 2:15-mc-00047, Doc. Nos. 1 & 2. The order stated, in relevant part:

       (1) The Clerk of the Court will collect any new civil complaint filed by
           Mr. Gardner in this [c]ourt and forward it to a magistrate judge for
           review.
       (2) The magistrate judge will then review the complaint to determine
           whether it has merit and should be filed, or whether it lacks merit,
           duplicates prior filings, or is frivolous.
       (3) If the magistrate judge determines the complaint lacks merit,
           duplicates prior filings, or is frivolous, the magistrate judge will
           forward the complaint to the Chief District Judge for further review.
       (4) If on review the Chief District Judge determines the complaint has
           merit, the complaint will be filed.

 Id., Doc No. 2. Gardner did not appeal the order imposing the filing restrictions.

       More recently, on March 16, 2023, Gardner initiated the instant proceedings

 by attempting to file in the district court what he characterized as a notice of removal.

 In that pleading, Gardner alleged that he was a “Uintah Indian in [the] State of Utah

 within Uintah County.” ROA, Vol. I at 4. Gardner further alleged that he had

 “commenced” an “action in the Supreme Court of Utah . . . on February 22, 2023,

 and March 3, 2023.” Id. He also alleged that he “filed [a] Petition for Writ of

 Certiorari in the supreme court of Utah” that was “denied [on] January 31, 2023.” Id.

 Gardner attached to his pleading copies of letters he received from the Clerk of the

 Supreme Court of Utah notifying him that (a) on January 31, 2023, the Supreme

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-4155    Document: 010111009913         Date Filed: 03/05/2024     Page: 3

 Court of Utah denied a petition for writ of certiorari that he filed on November 30,

 2022, (b) the Supreme Court of Utah does not accept petitions for rehearing or

 requests for reconsideration, and (c) the Supreme Court of Utah lacked authority to

 take any action on a second petition for writ of certiorari that he filed in the same

 matter.

       The clerk of the district court, acting pursuant to the filing restrictions

 previously imposed on Gardner, assigned Gardner’s proposed notice of removal to a

 magistrate judge for initial review. On March 20, 2023, the magistrate judge issued

 an order titled “RESTRICTED FILER CASE REVIEW ORDER.” ROA, Vol. II at 4.

 The magistrate judge determined that Gardner was attempting to “remov[e] a state

 court criminal proceeding which ha[d] been fully adjudicated.” Id. at 5. The

 magistrate judge noted in support that, “[b]ased on the records provided by . . .

 Gardner and the criminal case docket, [Gardner] was convicted at trial, his appeal

 was summarily denied by the Utah Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction, and his

 petition for certiorari was denied by the Utah Supreme Court.” Id. The magistrate

 judge concluded that “Gardner’s notice of removal [wa]s frivolous” and that the

 district court “lack[ed] subject-matter jurisdiction over the action” that Gardner was

 “seek[ing] to remove to federal court.” Id. The magistrate judge explained that,

 although Gardner “relie[d] on 28 U.S.C. § 1441 as the jurisdictional basis for

 removal,” that statute “only permits removal of ‘civil action[s] brought in a State

 court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.’” Id.

 at 6 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Because Gardner was seeking to remove “a

                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-4155     Document: 010111009913        Date Filed: 03/05/2024      Page: 4

 criminal action brought in state court,” the magistrate judge concluded that “§ 1441

 [wa]s wholly inapplicable.” Id. The magistrate judge also noted that “under the

 Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the [district] court lack[ed] jurisdiction over any attempt”

 by Gardner “to challenge a final state court judgment.” Id. Ultimately, the

 magistrate judge “forward[ed] . . . Gardner’s notice of removal and related

 submissions to the Chief District Judge for review” and recommended that the

 “notice of removal . . . not be accepted for filing and should be returned to him

 unfiled.” Id. at 8.

        Gardner filed a number of pleadings in response to the magistrate judge’s

 order. This included a brief in opposition to the magistrate judge’s order, in which

 Gardner argued that the district court “ha[d] subject matter jurisdiction over the

 claims” pursuant to “28 U.S.C. [§] 1331” and in turn had authority to “enjoin[] the

 State’s attempt to relitigate Reservation boundaries in State Court proceedings.” Id.

 at 10, 11. Gardner also filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief regarding

 the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 142 S.

 Ct. 2486 (2022) “on construing the meaning of [his] Uinta[h] Indian Treaty.” Id. at

 20. In addition, Gardner filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental motion for

 immediate release from the district court’s classification of him as a restricted filer.

        On November 27, 2023, the district court issued an order adopting the

 magistrate judge’s order and recommendation and denying Gardner’s motions for

 leave to file supplemental briefing. The district court noted in its order that it

 “entirely CONCUR[RED] with” the magistrate judge’s analysis, “finding that

                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-4155     Document: 010111009913        Date Filed: 03/05/2024     Page: 5

 regardless of [Gardner’s] restricted filer status, the court would lack subject matter

 jurisdiction.” Id. at 30–31. The district court further noted that “because . . .

 Gardner [wa]s a restricted file[r],” the “materials he . . . submitted in th[e] matter”

 would “be returned to him unfiled” and “[a]ny filing fee associated with [his] filing”

 would “be returned to the payor.” Id. at 31.

       On December 8, 2023, Gardner filed what he characterized as a “NOTICE OF

 APPEAL ON WRIT OF MANDAMUS.” Id. at 34. In the body of that pleading,

 Gardner “move[d] th[e] Court for an Order suppressing evidence related to his

 charges in . . . Uintah County.” Id. at 35. Gardner also alleged “Discrimination and

 prejudice against” him resulting from the restricted filer procedures previously

 imposed by the district court. Id.

       On December 20, 2023, Gardner filed another pleading titled “NOTICE OF

 APPEAL ON WRIT OF MANDAMUS,” in which he referred to the district court’s

 November 27, 2023 order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate

 judge. Id. at 38. The district court clerk’s office treated that as a notice of appeal

 and transmitted it to this court for docketing.

                                             5
Appellate Case: 23-4155     Document: 010111009913        Date Filed: 03/05/2024       Page: 6

                                             II

        In his opening brief, Gardner asks us to vacate the district court’s decision

 refusing to accept for filing his proposed notice of removal. Gardner argues that

 “[t]he district court had jurisdiction over [his] claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§§] 1331

 and 1367.” Aplt. Br. at 2. Gardner also purports to “appeal[] the district court’s

 imposition of filing restrictions” on him. Id.

        We begin with the filing restrictions that were imposed on Gardner. As we

 have noted, Gardner never appealed from the order that was entered on March 23,

 2015 imposing the filing restrictions on him. To the extent Gardner is attempting to

 collaterally challenge the March 23, 2015 order in this appeal, we lack jurisdiction to

 consider the merits of that prior order. See Stine v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 465

 F. App’x 790, 799 (10th Cir. 2012) (holding that a previously imposed order

 restricting an inmate’s ability to file lawsuits “generally may not be collaterally

 attacked at the time of its enforcement”). We would nevertheless remind Gardner

 that “the right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional, and there

 is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is

 frivolous or malicious.” Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989). To

 that end, a district court has the inherent power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 to impose

 filing restrictions when a party has “engaged in a pattern of litigation activity which

 is manifestly abusive,” Johnson v. Cowley, 872 F.2d 342, 344 (10th Cir. 1989),

 particularly when such filings have strained the resources of the court. See In re

 McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989).

                                             6
Appellate Case: 23-4155     Document: 010111009913        Date Filed: 03/05/2024     Page: 7

       Turning to the district court’s refusal to accept for filing Gardner’s proposed

 notice of removal, we review that decision for an abuse of discretion. Stine, 465 F.

 App’x at 800. Gardner’s proposed notice of removal, as the magistrate judge noted,

 effectively sought to remove to federal court a Utah state criminal proceeding against

 Gardner. As best we can tell, Gardner’s purpose in doing so was to challenge his

 Utah state conviction on the basis of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in

 Castro-Huerta, with Gardner presumably arguing that the Utah state courts lacked

 jurisdiction over him.

       Section 1455 of Title 28 outlines the procedure for the removal of criminal

 prosecutions from state courts. To begin with, the prosecution must be “pending” at

 the time the notice of removal is filed in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a).

 Further, the notice of removal must “be filed not later than 30 days after the

 arraignment in the State court, or at any time before trial, whichever is earlier, except

 that for good cause shown” the federal district court “may enter an order granting the

 defendant . . . leave to file the notice at a later time.” Id. § 1455(b)(1). The notice of

 removal must also “include all grounds for such removal,” and “[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).

       Gardner’s proposed notice of removal failed to satisfy these requirements.

 Most notably, Gardner’s proposed notice of removal was filed well after he was

 convicted at trial. In fact, the record on appeal indicates that Gardner did not file his

 notice of removal until after the Utah Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of

                                             7
Appellate Case: 23-4155    Document: 010111009913        Date Filed: 03/05/2024    Page: 8

 certiorari. Nothing in § 1455 indicates that removal would have been proper at that

 stage of the state criminal proceedings.

       For these reasons, we agree with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction

 over the matter and that, had it accepted Gardner’s proposed notice of removal for

 filing, it would have been obligated to remand the matter to state court.1 We

 therefore conclude there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in

 refusing to accept Gardner’s proposed notice of removal for filing.

                                            III

       The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Mary Beck Briscoe
                                             Circuit Judge

       1
          We note that had the district court accepted Gardner’s notice of removal for
 filing and then remanded the case “to the State court from which it was removed,”
 that decision would “not [have been] reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C.
 § 1447(d).
                                            8