Court Opinion

ID: 9382398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-27 17:00:39.890612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:39.222072
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-4071       Document: 010110832917     Date Filed: 03/27/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                               FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          March 27, 2023
                           _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  EDSON G. GARDNER,

           Plaintiff Counter Defendant -
           Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 22-4071
                                                     (D.C. No. 2:18-CV-00509-RJS)
  WENDI LONG, in her official capacity as                       (D. Utah)
  Treasurer for Uintah County, Utah,

           Defendant Counterclaimant -
           Appellee.
                          _________________________________

                               ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                           _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Plaintiff Edson G. Gardner appeals from an award of attorney fees after his

 lawsuit against the Treasurer for Uintah County, Utah (“Treasurer”), was dismissed

 for failure to state a claim. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we

 affirm.

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent,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: 22-4071    Document: 010110832917        Date Filed: 03/27/2023     Page: 2

       Edson Gardner filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Treasurer from enforcing

 tax liens against property in which he claimed to have an ownership interest.1 But

 the district court dismissed the lawsuit when Mr. Gardner failed to take any steps to

 advance the case on the merits. We affirmed the dismissal. Gardner v. Long,

 No. 21-4101, 2022 WL 1494425 (10th Cir. May 12, 2022).

       The district court subsequently sanctioned Mr. Gardner with an award of

 attorney fees on the ground that in filing the lawsuit, Mr. Gardner had acted in bad

 faith. The Treasurer’s attorneys submitted billing records reflecting a total of

 $27,820 in fees incurred. The district court noted that a small portion of that

 amount—$1,595—involved work related to the appellate proceedings before the

 Tenth Circuit. Because there had been no order from the Tenth Circuit awarding the

 Treasurer fees related to the appeal, the district court reduced the award to $26,225.

 Mr. Gardner timely appealed the award.2

       We review the decision to award attorney fees for abuse of discretion, which

 “has been characterized as an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly

 unreasonable judgment.” Xlear, Inc. v. Focus Nutrition, LLC, 893 F.3d 1227, 1233

       1
          For more than 30 years Edson Gardner has filed lawsuits contending that he
 is an Indian entitled to the protections afforded to members of Indian tribes under
 federal law, and therefore immune from the state and local laws to tax him and his
 property. He continues to pursue these lawsuits despite the fact that this Court held
 in 1994 that he is not a member of an Indian tribe. See Gardner v. United States,
 No. 93-4102, 1994 WL 170780, at *3-5 (10th Cir. May 5, 1994).
       2
          We liberally construe Mr. Gardner’s pro se filings, but we do not assume the
 role of his advocate. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-4071    Document: 010110832917         Date Filed: 03/27/2023     Page: 3

 (10th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A district court abuses its

 discretion if it commits legal error, relies on clearly erroneous factual findings, or

 issues a ruling without any rational evidentiary basis.” Id.

       A court has the inherent authority to assess attorney fees when a party acts “in

 bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, and for oppressive reasons.” Chambers v. NASCO,

 Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-46 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A party acts in

 bad faith only when the claim is brought entirely without color and has been asserted

 wantonly, for purposes of harassment or delay, or for other improper reasons.”

 Sterling Energy, Ltd. v. Friendly Nat’l Bank, 744 F.2d 1433, 1435 (10th Cir. 1984)

 (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Gardner’s long history of vexatious litigation

 behavior is well-established, see Gardner v. Wilkins, 593 F. App’x 800, 801

 (10th Cir. 2014), and we agree with the district court that his lawsuit in this case was

 merely a continuation of the same pattern. We discern no error in the district court’s

 decision to award attorney fees against Mr. Gardner.

       Mr. Gardner also challenges the amount of the fees awarded. In particular, he

 argues in one conclusory sentence that the rates charged by the Treasurer’s attorneys

 are too high. He failed to make this argument before the district court, however, and

 we decline to address it. See Phillips v. Calhoun, 956 F.2d 949, 953-54 (10th Cir.

 1992) (declining to address argument that plaintiff had not raised before the district

 court and was “minimally supported by legal argument” on appeal). Mr. Gardner

 also argues the Treasurer is not entitled to litigation expenses such as lodging,

                                             3
Appellate Case: 22-4071      Document: 010110832917       Date Filed: 03/27/2023      Page: 4

 Westlaw charges, and meals. Our review of the record, however, indicates that the

 fee award did not include any such expenses.

          Finally, Mr. Gardner argues the district court should have held a hearing

 before awarding any fees. But he did not request a hearing. “Ordinarily, a district

 court does not abuse its discretion in deciding not to hold an evidentiary hearing

 when no such request is ever made.” Robinson v. City of Edmond, 160 F.3d 1275,

 1286 (10th Cir. 1998). The district court committed no abuse of discretion in

 choosing not to hold a hearing.

          We affirm the district court’s award of attorney fees. We deny Mr. Gardner’s

 motion to proceed on appeal without prepaying costs or fees because he has not

 presented “a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the

 issues raised on appeal.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir.

 1991).

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Bobby R. Baldock
                                              Circuit Judge

                                              4