R. Stark Ligon, Jr. v. Teresa Bloodman ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                 United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 19-1618
    ___________________________
    R. Stark Ligon, Jr., as Executive Director of the Supreme Court Committee on
    Professional Conduct
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Teresa Lynette Bloodman, Attorney at Law, ABN 2005055
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
    ____________
    Submitted: December 16, 2019
    Filed: December 18, 2019
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before STRAS, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Teresa Bloodman appeals the district court’s1 order remanding her disbarment
    proceeding to Arkansas state court. We have jurisdiction to review the remand order
    because it involves a removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (civil action commenced in
    state court can be removed to federal court when action is against any person who is
    denied or cannot enforce in state court any law providing for equal rights of United
    States citizens). See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (order remanding case to state court is not
    reviewable unless case was removed pursuant to, inter alia, § 1443).
    We conclude that remand was proper because Bloodman failed to show that she
    met the requirements for removal under § 1443, as she did not show that, due to state
    law or an equivalent basis, she will be denied, or cannot enforce, her federal rights in
    state court. See Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., v. Ganon, 
    913 F.3d 704
    , 707 (8th
    Cir. 2019) (grant of motion to remand is reviewed de novo); Neal v. Wilson, 
    112 F.3d 351
    , 355 (8th Cir. 1997) (removal under § 1443 is warranted only if, inter alia, it can
    be predicted by reference to law of general application that party will be denied, or
    cannot enforce, federal rights in state court; in unusual case, equivalent basis could be
    shown for “equally firm prediction” that party will be denied, or cannot enforce,
    federal rights in state court). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Arkansas.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-1618

Filed Date: 12/18/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/18/2019