Muhammad v. Muhammad , 78 F. App'x 942 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 23, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Charles R. Fulbruge III
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk
_________________________
No. 02 – 61022
SUMMARY CALENDAR
_________________________
BRIDGETTE MUHAMMAD
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
MARVIN MUHAMMAD
Defendant - Appellant
______________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi
(02-CV-1296-BS)
______________________________________________________________________________
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge:1
In this appeal we review the district court's decision to remand this case to the state court
without an evidentiary hearing. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.
47.5.4.
-1-
Marvin Muhammad removed this child custody and child support case from the Chancery
Court of Jefferson County, Mississippi to the federal district court for the Southern District of
Mississippi pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Muhammad alleges that the Mississippi state courts
are biased and prejudiced against him. Plaintiff-Appellee, Bridgette Muhammad, subsequently
filed a motion to remand the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447. The district court granted that
motion without an evidentiary hearing. This appeal followed.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Appellant’s removal petition is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1443, this court has
jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Williams v.
Nichols, 464 F.2d 563, 564 (5th Cir. 1972). We review the district court’s remand order de novo.
Hexamer v. Foreness, 981 F.2d 821, 822-23 (5th Cir. 1993).
III.
REMOVAL
Appellant’s removal petition fails to show 1) that the right allegedly denied him arises
under a federal law providing for a specific right to racial equality; and 2) that he is being denied
or cannot enforce the specified federal right in the state courts due to some formal expression of
the law. State of Texas v. Gulf Water Benefaction Co., 679 F.2d 85, 86 (5th Cir. 1982).
Appellant’s removal petition makes conclusory allegations that state court officials conspired to
deprive him of certain non-race-related civil rights, including freedom of association and due
process of law. These are not adequate grounds for removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1443; Gulf Water, 679
F.2d at 86-87.
-2-
Appellant argues that the district court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing.
However, no evidentiary hearing is required if the grounds purportedly justifying removal are
patently invalid from the face of the removal petition. News-Texan, Inc. v. City of Garland, 814
F.2d 216 (5th Cir. 1987).
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision.
-3-