Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01011/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01011-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

l'lLti . United Stilfllt t ,irr of Appeals 

1'enth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

AUO 2 3 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

BELMONT LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JESUS LOPEZ, JR., D.D.S., P.C. 

and JESUS LOPEZ, JR., 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

RICHARD A. LEYBA, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

No. 90-1011 

(D.C. No. 89-F-2133) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1011 Document: 010110041439 Date Filed: 08/23/1990 Page: 1 
f 

Jesus Lopez, Jr. appeals from the district court's dismissal 

of his petition for removal to federal court of an action 

commenced against him in Colorado state court. The only ground 

for removal relied upon by defendant is 28 u.s.c. § 1443. That 

section, however, is reserved for actions wherein a defendant 

cannot enforce a racial equality law in state court and for 

actions against a federal or state officer who acts or refuses to 

act based upon the provisions of civil rights laws. See generally 

14A C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and 

Procedure § 3728 (2d ed. 1985). This section is clearly 

unavailable to Lopez; therefore, we AFFIRM for substantially the 

reasons set forth in the district court's order dated January 3, 

1990. 

Defendant's motions, except insofar as they request a 

decision on the briefs, are denied. The only sanction available 

for failure of an appellee to file a brief is to disallow appellee 

the opportunity for oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 3l(c). 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1011 Document: 010110041439 Date Filed: 08/23/1990 Page: 2