Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-03299/USCOURTS-ca10-04-03299-0/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 ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

June 10, 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

IN THE MATTER OF BABY C, a 

minor child, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

V. 

ROSEMARY DENISE PRICE; 

DAVID M. PRICE, 

Defendants - Appellants. 

No. 04-3299 

(Kansas) 

(D.Ct. No. 04-CV-4044-SAC) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, LUCERO, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and 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); 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• This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of 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. 

Appellate Case: 04-3299 Document: 010110666485 Date Filed: 06/10/2005 Page: 1
The present case arises out of a dispute over the adoption of Baby C. Baby 

C was given up for adoption to third-parties shortly after birth by the biological 

mother. The biological father, David Price, and his wife, Rosemary, contested the 

adoption in the Kansas state courts. After a series of adverse rulings in the state 

courts, the Prices, appearing prose, filed a notice of removal in the United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 alleging a 

multitude of federal and state constitutional and statutory violations. The district 

court denied the attempt at removal and remanded the cases to the state courts. 

This appeal followed. The Prices contest the district court's remand of their cases 

to state court and its award of attorney's fees and costs. We affirm. 

I. Background 

The state court proceedings commenced on May 4, 2001, when the adoptive 

parents filed a petition for the adoption of Baby C in the Shawnee County, 

Kansas, District Court ("SCDC") (Case No. 01 A 48). In that proceeding, the 

biological mother consented to the .adoption and the petition named David Price 

as the biological father. On May 10, 2001, the adoptive parents petitioned the 

SCDC to sever the father's parental rights to Baby C. After a hearing on July 22-

23, 2002, 1 the SCDC entered an order terminating David Price's parental rights to 

1 Initially, the district court had severed David Price's parental rights and entered 

an adoption decree after he failed to appear at a hearing on June 22, 2001. On July 16, 

2001, David Price successfully moved to have the court set aside the default termination 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-3299 Document: 010110666485 Date Filed: 06/10/2005 Page: 2
Baby C and later denied his motion to reconsider. 

David Price appealed the SCDC's ruling to the Court of Appeals for the 

State of Kansas, which affirmed on December 19, 2003 (Case No. 03 90035 A). 

The Kansas Supreme Court denied David Price's petition for review on March 30, 

2004. On January 5, 2004, during the pendency of David Price's appeal, 

Rosemary Price filed a petition for stepparent adoption with the SCDC (Case No. 

04 A 3 ). After the denial of review in the first case by the Kansas Supreme 

Court, the adoption by the adoptive parents was finalized by the SCDC on April 

23,2004 

On May 5, 2004, David and Rosemary Price, prose, filed a Notice of 

Removal in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas ("USDC") 

seeking to remove both David and Rosemary's state cases (Case Nos. 01 A 48 & 

04 A 3) as well as the appeal of David's case (Case No. 03 90035 A). The Prices 

raised a multitude of federal constitutional and statutory claims as well as state 

constitutional and statutory claims based on the termination of David Price's 

parental rights and the adoption of Baby C. The adoptive parents filed a motion 

for dismissal claiming procedural and jurisdictional defects with the notice of 

removal. 

On June 10, 2004, the USDC remanded the cases on three grounds: 1) the 

and adoption orders. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-3299 Document: 010110666485 Date Filed: 06/10/2005 Page: 3
pleadings did not establish that the notice of removal had be1~n filed within the 

thirty-day time requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b); 2) the complaints and 

petitions did not contain any questions arising under federal law; and 3) the notice 

of removal did not satisfy the requirements for removal of a civil rights case 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. The USDC also ordered the Prices to pay $1000 in 

attorney's fees and costs to the adoptive parents under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The 

Prices filed a motion for reconsideration on June 22, 2004. The district court 

denied the motion on July 27, 2004. The Prices filed a notic1;: of appeal to this 

Court on August 9, 2004. They challenge the remand of their cases and the award 

of attorney's fees and costs. 2 

II. Discussion 

A. Remand 

"Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 a defendant in state court may remove the case to 

federal court when a federal court would have had jurisdiction if the case had 

been filed there originally." Johnson, 404 F.3d at 1247. Under§ 1446(b), a 

2 This Court has recently held that remand orders for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction involving cases originally removed under § 1441 are insulated from review. 

Topeka Housing Auth. v. Johnson, 404 F.3d 1245. 1247-48 (10th Cir. 2005). However, 

certain civil rights cases removed under§ 1443 are not subject to this bar. Id. at 1248. 

Here, the Prices attempted to remove their cases under § 1441 but raised several civil 

rights claims which the district court discussed under§ 1443. Additionally, the award of 

fees and costs are still reviewable as well as the underlying legal analysis supporting the 

award. Id. Accordingly, we review the district court's order denying removal and 

remanding the cases to state court. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-3299 Document: 010110666485 Date Filed: 06/10/2005 Page: 4
defendant in a state court action desiring to remove a civil action must file the 

notice of removal: 

within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or 

otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for 

relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within thirty 

days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial 

pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on 

the defendant, whichever period is shorter. 

In order to establish federal question jurisdiction, the federal question must be 

"presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar 

Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Except for narrow circumstances not 

present here, "a case may not be removed to federal court solely because of a 

defense or counterclaim arising under federal law." Johnson, 404 F.3d at 1247; 

see also Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 

830-31 & n.2 (2002). Generally, the presumption is "against removal 

jurisdiction." Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871,873 (10th Cir. 1995). The 

removing party has the burden to demonstrate the appropriateness of removal 

from state to federal court. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 

U.S. 178, 189 (1936). Thus, doubtful cases must be resolved in favor of remand. 

With these principles in mind, we have carefully reviewed the record, and 

agree with the district court's conclusions. First, as a procedural matter, the 

Prices have not complied with the requirements of§ l 446(b ). According to the 

record, David Price received notice of the petition for adoption filed in the 

-5-

Appellate Case: 04-3299 Document: 010110666485 Date Filed: 06/10/2005 Page: 5
Shawnee County District Court on May 12, 2001. Under§ 1446(b), he had 30 

days to file a notice of removal. He did not actually file his notice of removal 

until May 5, 2004, almost three years after he had received notice of the petition 

for adoption. In the interim, the state court proceeding was completed, Price 

appealed, the Court of Appeals for the State of Kansas affirmed the district 

court's ruling, and the Kansas Supreme Court denied review. The removal 

statutes are not a mechanism for relitigating cases already decided by state courts, 

nor for removing cases on appeal in the state courts. 3 Finally, Rosemary Price 

cannot remove her state court adoption petition (Case No. 04 A 3) to federal court 

simply because she is not the defendant in that case. She voluntarily chose to file 

her case in state court and is ineligible to remove it. See 28 U.S.C. § 144l(a) 

("[A]ny civil action brought in a State court ... may be removed by the defendant 

or defendants .... ") ( emphasis added). 

Second, and equally fatal, the underlying state court adoption case did not 

state a federal question on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint; 

here the adoptive parents' petition for adoption. Adoption is quintessentially a 

3 By attempting to remove state court cases that have already been concluded, the 

Prices are attempting an end-run around the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Rooker-Feldman 

precludes the losing party in a state court action from filing suit in federal court to set 

aside the state court judgment. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 125 

S. Ct. 1517, 1522-23 (2005). This is precisely what the Prices are trying to do and their 

attempt cannot be countenanced. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 04-3299 Document: 010110666485 Date Filed: 06/10/2005 Page: 6
state law issue and all of the Price's claims in federal court constitute putative 

defenses or counterclaims to the adoption based on federal law. Moreover, many 

of the putative defenses or counterclaims are suspect. For example, the Prices 

argue the federal courts should step in because "new laws need to be written 

and/or adopted to protect a third party of interest, namely the intended 

mother/step-mother, in an 'at birth adoption?"' (Appellants' Br. 22.) This is 

precisely the type of case that is meant to be excluded from removal by the 

properly pleaded plaintiff's complaint rule articulated in Caterpillar. Thus, the 

district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and was correct to remand the 

cases to state court based on procedural defects and lack of jurisdiction. 

B. Attorney Fees 

The Prices also challenge the district court's award of $1000 in costs to the 

adoptive parents. Section 144 7( c) allows a court to "require payment of just cost 

and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the 

removal." A court's decision to grant a fee award "is reviewed for abuse of 

discretion while the underlying legal analysis is reviewed de novo." Suder v. Blue 

Circle, Inc., 116 F.3d 1351, 1352 (10th Cir. 1997). "No showing of bad faith is 

necessary to justify the award," Johnson, 404 F.3d at 1248, only "a showing that 

the removal was improper ab initio." Suder, 116 F.3d at 1352. That the Prices 

are prose litigants does not prevent the court from imposing sanctions. Johnson, 

-7-

Appellate Case: 04-3299 Document: 010110666485 Date Filed: 06/10/2005 Page: 7
404 F .3d at 1248; Haworth v. Royal, 34 7 F .3d 1189, 1192 (10th Cir. 2003). The 

district court determined that $1000 was "less than the actual expenses and costs 

incurred by the adoptive parents in challenging federal jurisdiction over these 

removed cases" and that "the award of $1000 is fair and reasonable in light of the 

pro se status of the removing parties." (R., Doc. 6 at 7 n.1.) 'We cannot say the 

district court abused its discretion in awarding this sum and there was no 

reasonable argument for removal. See Huffman v. Saul Holdings Ltd. P 'ship, 262 

F.3d 1128, 1135 (10th Cir. 2001) (review for reasonableness under§ 1447(c)). 

III. Conclusion 

The district court's order remanding the cases to state court is AFFIRMED. 

The district court's order awarding attorney's fees and costs to the adoptive 

parents is AFFIRMED. 

The Prices have also filed three Motions to Supplement the Record 

regarding case numbers DA 8893 and DA 9076, In the Matter of Bret D. Landrith. 

Because they fail to address the defects discussed above, the motions are 

DENIED. 

Price's application to proceed informa pauperis is GRANTED. 

Entered by the Court: 

Terrence L. O'Brien 

United States Circuit Judge 

-8-

Appellate Case: 04-3299 Document: 010110666485 Date Filed: 06/10/2005 Page: 8