Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02559/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02559-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2559

___________

Green Tree Servicing, LLC, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Larry Thomas; Rosie Lee Thomas, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellants. *

___________

Submitted: March 10, 2010

 Filed: March 15, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Larry and Rosie Lee Thomas, who removed this action originally brought

against them in state court, appeal the order of the District Court1

 remanding the case

to state court. On appeal, they argue that the District Court erred in concluding that

their removal notice was untimely and in failing to rule on their pending motions.

They have also filed a motion in this Court seeking a contempt order.

Appellate Case: 09-2559 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2010 Entry ID: 3644155
-2-

We have jurisdiction to review the District Court's remand order only to the

extent that the Thomases' removal was based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1443. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(d) (stating that an order remanding a case to state court is not reviewable on

appeal unless the case was removed to federal court pursuant to § 1443). Exercising

this limited jurisdiction, we affirm the District Court's remand order because removal

under § 1443 was improper. See City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824

(1966) (holding that § 1443(2) allows removal only by "federal officers or agents and

those authorized to act with or for them in affirmatively executing duties under any

federal law providing for equal civil rights"); id. at 828 (holding that § 1443(1)

permits removal only in "rare situations where it can be clearly predicted by reason

of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law" that federal rights will

be denied by "the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the state court"); Neal

v. Wilson, 112 F.3d 351, 355 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding that removal under § 1443(1)

is proper only where a party shows reliance "upon a law providing for equal civil

rights stated in terms of racial equality"; removal is proper if it can be "predicted by

reference to a law of general application that the defendant will be denied or cannot

enforce the specified federal rights in the state courts"); see also Phipps v. FDIC, 417

F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2005) (noting that appellate court may affirm on any basis

supported by the record). We also hold that the District Court did not err in declining

to rule on the Thomases' pending motions. See Vincent v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R.

Corp., 200 F.3d 580, 582 (8th Cir. 2000) (noting that when a case is remanded to state

court for lack of jurisdiction, the district court lacks jurisdiction to make any

substantive rulings).

Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny the Thomases' pending motion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2559 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2010 Entry ID: 3644155