Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-05153/USCOURTS-ca10-04-05153-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

June 7, 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

BERNICE ALEXANDER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V. 

No. 04-5153 

(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Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of 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. 

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. § l 9 l 5(a)( I). 

Appellate Case: 04-5153 Document: 010110646605 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Page: 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, 3 83 (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 -

Appellate Case: 04-5153 Document: 010110646605 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Page: 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 -

Appellate Case: 04-5153 Document: 010110646605 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Page: 3
Appellate Case: 04-5153 Document: 010110646605 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Page: 4