Alexander v. Tulsa Public Schools , 133 F. App'x 581 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                                        F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    June 7, 2005
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    TENTH CIRCUIT                      PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    BERNICE ALEXANDER,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    No. 04-5153
    v.                                            (D.C. No. CV-04-661-EA(C))
    (N. D. Okla.)
    TULSA PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before EBEL, McKAY and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
    Plaintiff-Appellant Bernice Alexander, proceeding pro se, appeals 1 the
    district court’s decision denying Alexander’s attempt to remove her state-court
    action to federal court. (R. doc. 4.) Although ordinarily “[a]n order remanding a
    *
    After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
    determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
    determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 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    Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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. The court generally disfavors the
    citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be
    cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    1
    The district court granted Alexander’s motion to proceed on appeal
    in forma pauperis. (Aple’s App. at 2, District ct. docket sheet no. 8.) See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (a)(1).
    case to the state court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or
    otherwise,” this court has jurisdiction to review this remand order because
    Alexander appears to have sought to remove her state-court action under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1443
    . 2 
    28 U.S.C. § 1447
    (d); see also First Union Mortgage Corp. v.
    Smith, 
    229 F.3d 992
    , 994 (10th Cir. 2000). “We review de novo a district court’s
    determination of the propriety of removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 
    251 F.3d 1284
    , 1289 (10th Cir. 2001).
    The district court correctly determined that Alexander cannot remove her
    own state-court action to federal court. 3 See Hamilton v. Aetna Life and Cas.
    Co., 
    5 F.3d 642
    , 643, 644 (2d Cir. 1993); Ballard’s Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Transue,
    
    865 F.2d 447
    , 449 (1st Cir. 1989); Oregon Egg Producers v. Andrew, 
    458 F.2d 382
    , 383 (9th Cir. 1972). See generally Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 
    313 U.S. 100
    , 103, 104-07 (1941) (addressing earlier removal statute, discussing
    history of removal, and concluding earlier removal statute permitted only
    2
    We do not know for certain if Alexander specifically relied upon
    § 1443 to remove her state-court action. However, the district court specifically
    mentioned § 1443 in denying removal, and we shall, therefore, simply assume that
    Alexander sought to invoke § 1443 in her removal petition.
    3
    Because we affirm on this ground, we do not consider the district
    court’s alternative ground for denying removal – that Alexander failed to get the
    district court’s permission to file these pleadings in federal court, as may be
    required by an earlier federal court order. (R. doc. 4.)
    -2-
    defendants to remove state actions to federal courts). We, therefore, AFFIRM the
    district court’s decision to deny removal.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    David M. Ebel
    Circuit Judge
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-5153

Citation Numbers: 133 F. App'x 581

Judges: Ebel, Henry, McKAY

Filed Date: 6/7/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023