Robinson v. State of New Mexico, No. 18-2179 (10th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ DEBORAH SANT ROBINSON, June 28, 2019 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; GERALDINE SANCHEZ, Clerk of Santa Fe County; ALAN WEBER, The Mayor of Santa Fe; ST. VINCENT CHRISTUS REGIONAL HOSPITAL; LIFE LINK HOUSING AND SERVICES; LOS ALAMOS ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, Board and Members; LOS ALAMOS MEDICAL CENTER; UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, UNM-LA; TIM KELLER, The Mayor of Albuquerque; LINDA STOVER, Clerk of Bernalillo County; JAIVAIR LNU, Mayor of Espanola; MOISES MOLIAS; LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL SECURITY LLC; NEW MEXICO HEARINGS BUREAU, No. 18-2179 (D.C. No. 1:18-CV-00665-WJ-LF) (D. N.M.) Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * * Oral argument would not materially help us to decide this appeal. We have thus decided the appeal based on the plaintiff’s appellate brief and the record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). _________________________________ Before HOLMES, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Ms. Deborah Sant Robinson appeals the dismissal of this case. We dismiss the appeal as frivolous. The federal statutes governing removal allow a defendant in a state court action to remove a state court case to federal court in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446. Ms. Robinson removed five cases to federal court. As the district court correctly explained, none of the cases were removable. In two of the cases, Ms. Robinson was the plaintiff; and plaintiffs are not entitled to remove cases to federal court. See Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 5 F.3d 642, 643 (2d Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (“No section [of the United States Code] provides for removal by a plaintiff.”); see also 14C Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3730 (Rev. 4th. ed. 2018) (stating that “plaintiffs cannot remove” cases to federal court). A third case was already in federal court. And the other two cases were pending in administrative bodies rather than a state court. See Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus. ex rel. Richardson v. U.S. W. Commc’ns, Inc., 288 F.3d 414, 419 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We therefore hold 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). 2 that 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) does not authorize removal of proceedings from an administrative agency. . . .”). Despite the explanation, Ms. Robinson appealed. She disregarded the district court’s explanation and failed to provide a meaningful argument for reversal. In the absence of a meaningful argument, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (stating the standard for legal frivolousness). Given the absence of a nonfrivolous argument for reversal, we also deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991) (requiring inability to pay and a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument in support of the issues on appeal). We thus order Ms. Robinson to pay the filing fees of $505.00. 1 Entered for the Court Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge 1 Ms. Robinson is to pay these fees to the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
