Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01368/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01368-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

GRANT MATTHEWS, also known as 

Leslie A. Johnson, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v. 

FILED 

United Sta.i:es Court of Appeals 'r,P!Y~·1' ,..,;,.... ...... "!H 

JUN 1 7 1991 

TIOJJERT L. HOE'JKER 

r'ie1'•k J • ..• 

Nos. 90-1368 

& 

90-1369 

LAURAL. PHELPS, 

Respondent-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(D.C. No. 90-F-1995) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, LOGAN, and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a), 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Our No. 90-1368 is an appeal from an order of the United 

States District Court for the District of Colorado remanding a 

removed action to the state district court for Chaffee County, 

* 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: 90-1368 Document: 010110120900 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 1 
., 

Colorado; No. 90-1369 is an appeal from an order denying reconsideration of the remand order. We consider these appeals 

together. 

A civil action brought in state court may be removed to a 

federal district court if the federal court would have had 

original jurisdiction to entertain the action. See 28 u.s.c. 

§ 144l(a). Here, the underlying action is one for the dissolution 

of a common law marriage. It is well established that federal 

courts lack jurisdiction to grant a divorce or annulment, 

determine support payments, or award custody of children. See 

Vaughan v. Smithson, 883 F.2d 63, 64 (10th Cir. 1989) (per 

curiam); see also In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890) 

("[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and 

wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not 

to the laws of the United States"); Barber v. Barber, 62 U.S. (21 

How.) 582, 584 (1858) ("[w]e disclaim altogether any jurisdiction 

in the courts of the United States upon the subject of divorce, or 

for the allowance of alimony"). 

Ms. Phelps attempts to invoke the district court's jurisdiction by claiming she is being denied her civil rights in the 

dissolution proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (1988). However, 

section 1443 applies only to denials of specific rights of racial 

equality and not to the whole gamut of constitutional rights. 

United States ex rel. Sullivan v. State, 588 F.2d 579, 580 (8th 

Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (citing Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 

792 (1966)). Section 1443(2) is wholly inapplicable to the 

instant case and is therefore not a basis for removal to federal 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-1368 Document: 010110120900 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 2 
court. As explained in a similar attempt to remove a divorce 

proceeding: 

28 U.S.C. § 1443(2) is inapplicable to this case. 

"[T]he history of§ 1443(2) demonstrates convincingly 

that this subsection of the removal statute is available 

only to federal officers and to persons assisting such 

officers in the performance of their official duties." 

City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 815, 86 

S. Ct. 1800, 1805, 16 L.Ed.2d 944 (1966). Petitioner is 

not within the class to which§ 1443(2) is available. 

Sanchez v. Sanchez, 424 F. Supp. 451, 453 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). 

Similarly, Phelps cannot satisfy the test to remove a state 

court action under 28 u.s.c. § 1443(1): 

"[A] removal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) must 

satisfy a two-pronged test. First, it must appear that 

the right allegedly denied the removal petitioner arises 

under a federal law 'providing for specific civil rights 

stated in terms of racial equality.' ... Second, it 

must appear, in accordance with the provisions of 

§ 1443(1), that the removal petitioner is 'denied' or 

cannot enforce' the specified federal rights 'in the 

courts of [the] State.'" Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 

U.S. 213, 219, 95 S. Ct. 1591, 1595, 44 L.ED.2d 121 

(1975). 

Id.; see also Osborne v. Osborne, 554 F. Supp. 566, 568 (D. Md. 

1982), dismissed, 707 F.2d 508 (4th Cir. 1983). 

Phelps has failed to satisfy the first element of this test 

as none of her claims arise from a federal law providing for 

specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality. See 

Patterson v. Patterson, 381 F. Supp. 1029, 1030 (D. Colo. 1974) 

(section 1443 does not permit removal of dissolution of marriage 

proceeding where no denial of civil rights on basis of race is 

involved). Because Phelps' section 1443 claims are wholly without 

merit, there is no basis for exercising federal jurisdiction in 

the instant case. 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-1368 Document: 010110120900 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 3 
., 

This action is remanded to the district court with directions 

to modify its judgment to reflect a dismissal for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. The mandates shall issue forthwith. All 

outstanding motions are denied. 

4 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1368 Document: 010110120900 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 4