Court Opinion

ID: 9369036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 18:01:53.42265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:12.495782
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-3046     Document: 010110809439   Date Filed: 02/07/2023   Page: 1
                                                                             FILED
                                                                 United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                    Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                    February 7, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                     Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                         Clerk of Court
  EPHRAIM WOODS, JR.,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                      No. 22-3046
                                              (D.C. No. 2:21-CV-02011-DDC-TJJ)
  KENDRA ROSS; CHERYL ROSS,                                (D. Kan.)

        Defendants - Appellees.

  –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

  DWIGHT JOHNSON,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                      No. 22-3058
                                              (D.C. No. 2:21-CV-02013-DDC-TJJ)
  KENDRA ROSS; CHERYL ROSS,                                (D. Kan.)

        Defendants - Appellees.

  –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

  RAASIKH ROBERTSON,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,
                                                          No. 22-3059
  v.                                          (D.C. No. 2:21-CV-02014-DDC-TJJ)
                                                           (D. Kan.)
  KENDRA ROSS; CHERYL ROSS,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________
Appellate Case: 22-3046     Document: 010110809439        Date Filed: 02/07/2023      Page: 2

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       The appeals in these consolidated cases arise from the district court’s judgment

 dismissing Plaintiffs’ actions for failure to state a claim for relief. Exercising

 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm in each appeal.

                                   I. BACKGROUND

       In 2017, Kendra Ross filed a federal lawsuit against The Value Creators, Inc.,

 formerly known as the United Nation of Islam, Inc. (UNOI); UNOI’s leader, Royall

 Jenkins; and related entities. Kendra and her mother, Cheryl Ross, were UNOI

 members.1 Kendra alleged the defendants had trafficked her and forced her into

 unpaid labor from the age of 11 until she was 21. The district court granted Kendra’s

 motion for default judgment and awarded her nearly $8 million. See Ross v. Jenkins,

 325 F. Supp. 3d 1141, 1153 (D. Kan. 2018).

       *
         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.
       1
         The brief for Kendra and Cheryl Ross refers to them by their first names. We
 do the same to avoid confusion.

                                                 2
Appellate Case: 22-3046        Document: 010110809439      Date Filed: 02/07/2023    Page: 3

        In 2020, three UNOI members (Messrs. Woods, Johnson, and Robertson) filed

 separate but similar pro se actions in Kansas state court against Kendra and Cheryl

 for breach of contract and defamation. Kendra removed the cases to federal court

 and moved to dismiss the complaints under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

 for failure to state a claim. The district court granted Kendra’s motions to dismiss

 and denied Plaintiffs’ various motions, including motions for recusal, to remand, and

 for default judgment. The court also ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the court

 should not dismiss their complaints against Cheryl, who had not entered an

 appearance in the case. Plaintiffs responded and sought a default judgment against

 Cheryl. After further proceedings not relevant to this appeal, the district court denied

 the motions for default judgment against Cheryl and dismissed the cases with

 prejudice.

        Plaintiffs appealed, and we consolidated their appeals. Because Plaintiffs’

 filings in the district court and this court are materially similar, we cite to

 Mr. Woods’s filings and the record in his appeal.

                                        II. DISCUSSION

        We construe Plaintiffs’ pro se opening briefs liberally.2 See Yang v. Archuleta,

 525 F.3d at 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs argue that (1) removal was

 improper and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction, (2) the district court

        2
            Plaintiffs did not file reply briefs.
                                                    3
Appellate Case: 22-3046     Document: 010110809439           Date Filed: 02/07/2023   Page: 4

 should have entered default judgment against Kendra and Cheryl, and (3) the district

 court judge was biased against them.

                                        A. Removal

        Plaintiffs contend that Kendra’s removal was untimely and therefore the

 district court lacked jurisdiction.3 But as explained below, they failed to argue in

 district court that removal was untimely, and they have not argued here for

 plain-error review. Plaintiffs therefore have waived this issue, and we are not

 required to consider it because it is not jurisdictional.

    Legal Background

        Our discussion of this issue refers to three different 30-day time limits:

        (1) The summons served on Kendra in the state court action said she had 30
           days to file a responsive pleading.

        (2) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), the defendant must file a notice of removal
           “within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or
           otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief
           upon which such action or proceeding is based.”

        (3) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), “A motion to remand the case on the basis of
           any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made
           within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section
           1446(a).”

        3
         Our independent review shows no error in the district court’s determination
 that diversity jurisdiction existed. Plaintiffs do not contend otherwise.

                                                 4
Appellate Case: 22-3046    Document: 010110809439         Date Filed: 02/07/2023      Page: 5

    Additional Procedural Background

        In the state court action, Plaintiffs served Cheryl on October 1, 2020, and

 allegedly served Kendra on October 7, 2020. The summonses said the Defendants

 had 30 days to file an answer. Neither one did. On December 17 and 23, 2020,

 Plaintiffs Woods and Johnson filed motions for default in state court against both

 Defendants.

        On January 11, 2021, Kendra filed a notice of removal based on diversity

 jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. She alleged that because she had not yet been

 served with the state court summons, § 1446(b)(1)’s 30-day removal period had

 never begun. On January 22 and 25, 2021, Plaintiffs filed motions to transfer the

 case back to state court, arguing that the federal district court lacked subject matter

 jurisdiction.

        The district court construed Plaintiffs’ filings as motions to remand and denied

 them. It first concluded that diversity jurisdiction was proper. Also, although the

 motions were filed within 30 days of the removal under § 1447(c), the court

 determined Plaintiffs had “waived any argument that Kendra’s Notice of Removal

 was defective procedurally” because they “challenge[d] neither the timeliness of

 removal nor whether both defendants consented to removal—procedural defects.”

 R., Vol. 2 at 135 n.4.

    Analysis

        On appeal, Plaintiffs do not contest the district court’s determination that they

 waived any challenge to the timeliness of removal. They thus have waived appellate

                                                5
Appellate Case: 22-3046     Document: 010110809439          Date Filed: 02/07/2023      Page: 6

 review of that ruling. See Sawyers v. Norton, 962 F.3d 1270, 1286 (10th Cir. 2020)

 (“Issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed abandoned or waived.”).4

        Plaintiffs now argue removal was untimely. But they forfeited this

 argument—they failed to raise it in district court. See Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc.,

 634 F.3d 1123, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011) (explaining that if a litigant fails to raise a legal

 theory in the district court, “we usually hold it forfeited,” rather than waived). And

 “we will reverse a district court’s judgment on the basis of a forfeited theory only if

 failing to do so would entrench a plainly erroneous result.” Id. Plaintiffs have not

 argued for plain-error review, so they have waived their timeliness argument in this

 court. Id. at 1131.

        Further, because an untimely notice of removal is “[a] procedural defect,” and

 such defects do “not involve the subject matter jurisdiction of the court and may be

        4
           In any event, Plaintiffs did not challenge the timeliness of removal within
 § 1447(c)’s 30-day period. In their district court filings made within that period,
 Plaintiffs twice mentioned a 30-day limit.
          First, their motions to remand stated: “I move to have [Kendra’s attorney’s] filing
 [i.e., the notice of removal,] stricken and this case put back in the proper jurisdiction and
 the fact Kendra Ross has defaulted over the 30 day time limit [to respond to the
 summons] which clearly demonstrates that [her attorney’s] filing is a moot point.”
 R., Vol. 1 at 179 (emphasis added).
          Second, Mr. Woods’s objection to Kendra’s “Attorney . . . As A Moot Point”
 stated that “any filing once past the 30 days on the summons now becomes a moot point
 and has no foundation in law,” and “[a] default motion has been filed against
 [Defendants] and both were given an additional 30 days over the required 30 day
 standard as per the summons and by the court rules.” Id. at 185 (emphasis added).
          These references concern Kendra’s failure to file a responsive pleading in state
 court within the 30-day deadline stated in the summons allegedly served on her, not her
 failure to file the notice of removal within 30 days of the alleged service under
 § 1446(b)(1).

                                                  6
Appellate Case: 22-3046     Document: 010110809439         Date Filed: 02/07/2023     Page: 7

 waived,” we are not obligated to take up the issue sua sponte. Huffman v. Saul

 Holdings Ltd. P’ship, 194 F.3d 1072, 1077 (10th Cir. 1999); see Daigle v. Shell Oil

 Co., 972 F.2d 1527, 1539 (10th Cir. 1992) (recognizing “general rule [that] we refuse

 to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal unless . . . jurisdiction is in

 question”).

        Plaintiffs also appear to argue that removal was improper because Kendra

 failed to file an answer in state court within 30 days, as the summons instructed. But

 their supporting legal authority supports only that a plaintiff may seek a default when

 a defendant fails to timely respond to an initial pleading. Plaintiffs provide no legal

 authority holding that a defendant who fails to timely respond to an initial pleading

 may not remove a case to federal court.

                                  B. Default Judgment

        Plaintiffs contend the district court erred in not entering default judgment in

 their favor. Our review is for an abuse of discretion. Bixler v. Foster, 596 F.3d 751,

 761 (10th Cir. 2010). We see none. The district court provided three alternative

 bases to deny Plaintiffs’ motions for default judgment. We need consider only one—

 that default judgment was not warranted because Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for

 relief under Rule 12(b)(6).5 See Bixler, 596 F.3d at 762 (explaining that a district

        5
          The district court’s other two reasons for denying default judgment were
 (1) although Plaintiffs had filed a motion for default in state court, that court had
 never acted on their motion, and they failed to file a motion for default in federal
 court; and (2) Kendra had not been properly served.

                                                 7
Appellate Case: 22-3046     Document: 010110809439         Date Filed: 02/07/2023     Page: 8

 court does not abuse its discretion by denying default judgment where claims are

 “subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)”). Plaintiffs have not challenged the

 district court’s conclusion that they failed to state a claim for relief, so they have

 waived appellate review of that ruling. See Sawyers, 962 F.3d at 1286. Because

 their claims were legally deficient, they cannot show the district court abused its

 discretion by refusing to enter default judgment.

                                     C. Judicial Bias

        Plaintiffs filed motions to recuse the district court judge under 28 U.S.C.

 § 455(a), arguing he was biased because he had ruled in Kendra’s favor in Ross v.

 Jenkins. The district court denied their motions, explaining that “adverse rulings

 provide no reason for recusal.” R., Vol. 2 at 131.

        A federal judge must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality

 might reasonably be questioned.” § 455(a). “We review a districts court’s denial of

 a motion to disqualify a judge for abuse of discretion.” Burke v. Regalado, 935 F.3d

 960, 1052 (10th Cir. 2019).

        Plaintiffs have failed to meet their “heavy burden of showing the requisite

 judicial bias.” Topeka Hous. Auth. v. Johnson, 404 F.3d 1245, 1248 (10th Cir. 2005).

 “[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality

 motion,” and “opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events

 occurring in the course of . . . prior proceedings[] do not constitute a basis for a bias

 or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that

 would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,

                                                 8
Appellate Case: 22-3046    Document: 010110809439        Date Filed: 02/07/2023     Page: 9

 555 (1994). Indeed, we recently said that “judges need not ordinarily recuse after

 ruling on similar issues in other cases involving the same parties.” Zen Magnets,

 LLC v. Consumer Prods. Safety Comm’n, 968 F.3d 1156, 1168 (10th Cir. 2020).

       On appeal, Plaintiffs summarily repeat their argument that the district court

 judge was biased against them because of his ruling in Ross v. Jenkins. This

 argument fails to demonstrate any “favoritism or antagonism” arising from the ruling

 in that case that rendered the district judge unable to make a fair judgment in these

 cases.6

                                  III. CONCLUSION

       We affirm the district court’s judgments in each appeal. We deny the motions

 that Plaintiffs Johnson and Robertson have filed to proceed on appeal in forma

 pauperis because they have failed to show the “existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous

 argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised.” Buchheit v. Green,

 705 F.3d 1157, 1161 (10th Cir. 2012) (quotations omitted). Their filing and

 docketing fees are thus now due in full. We deny all other pending motions and

 mandamus petitions.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
                                             Circuit Judge

       6
         Plaintiffs raise no arguments bearing on the district court’s dismissal of their
 claims against Cheryl.

                                                9