Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-08-02219/USCOURTS-ca10-08-02219-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 23, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CONSUELO ANGELA YSAIS,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER YSAIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-2219

(D.C. No. 1:08-CV-00448-MV-RHS)

ORDER

Before O’BRIEN, McCONNELL and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Christopher Ysais, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s order

remanding his case to New Mexico state court. Because we lack jurisdiction to review

the district court’s remand order, we dismiss this appeal.

Removal of a case to federal court is generally governed by statute. 28 U.S.C. §

1441 et seq. “An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is

not reviewable on appeal or otherwise . . .” Id. § 1447(d). If the remand order is

predicated on one of the grounds enumerated in § 1447(c) – lack of subject matter

jurisdiction or a defect in the removal procedure – it is insulated from appellate review. 

Topeka Housing Auth. v. Johnson, 404 F.3d 1245, 1248 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Things

Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127-28 (1995)). The court of appeals

Appellate Case: 08-2219 Document: 01015758652 Date Filed: 09/23/2008 Page: 1 
-2-

adheres to this strong statutory limitation even if it believes that the district court was

incorrect. Kennedy v. Lubar, 273 F.3d 1293, 1297 (10th Cir. 2001).

Here, the district court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over

this removed action. The district court concluded that Mr. Ysais had not established

either diversity or federal question jurisdiction and that his allegations regarding civil

rights violations in the underlying divorce proceedings were insufficient to invoke

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443.

Because the district court remanded on the ground of lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, which is a ground recognized in § 1447(c), we do not have jurisdiction to

review the district court’s remand order. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also Topeka Housing

Auth. at 1248.

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 08-2219 Document: 01015758652 Date Filed: 09/23/2008 Page: 2