Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03434/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03434-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cheryl Denise Brasfield
Appellee
Tony Lynn Brasfield
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ~LL~Rppeall Unitea T nth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT e 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

CHERYL DENISE BRASFIELD, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

and 

TONY LYNN BRASFIELD, 

Respondent-Appellant. 

APR 2 7 ,~~J 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) (D. C. 

) 

) 

) 

Nos. 92-3422 

Nos. 

(D. 

& 

92-3434 

92-431 -SAC) 

& 

92-4265-SAC) 

Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and MOORE, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cases are therefore ordered 

These are appeals from two orders and a judgment of the 

district court which collectively purport to dismiss a removed 

action and deny respondent-appellant's application to proceed in 

* 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: 92-3434 Document: 010110220142 Date Filed: 04/27/1993 Page: 1 
forma pauperis on appeal. The matter is before the court on 

respondent's motion to stay certain state court proceedings. 

It appears that respondent is a party to a proceeding for 

dissolution of marriage now pending in the district court of Reno 

County, Kansas. It further appears that shortly after 

commencement of those proceedings, respondent filed, in the United 

States District Court for the District of Kansas, papers by which 

he sought removal of the state action and leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. From the record, it appears that removal was 

effective. 

By an order entered November 19, 1992, the district court 

concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and amended an earlier order 

" to allow the plaintiff to file his complaint in forma 

pauperis and to dismiss the case as frivolous." (emphasis 

supplied) . 

While the district court ' s ultimate jurisdictional conclusion 

was correct, there was no order of remand, explicit or otherwise. 

The district court's ostensible dismissal of a removal proceeding 

was inconsistent with the removal statute. Whenever the district 

court lacks jurisdiction, the case must be remanded. There must 

be full compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) in order to avoid 

uncertainties regarding the jurisdiction of the state court to 

proceed. 

We therefore vacate the orders and judgment appealed from and 

remand the underlying matter to the district court with 

instructions to enter an order, nunc pro tune to November 2, 1992, 

remanding the removed case. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3434 Document: 010110220142 Date Filed: 04/27/1993 Page: 2 
Accordingly, it is ordered as follows: 1 ) respondent may 

proceed without prepayment of costs or fees on appeal; 2 ) the 

motion for stay of state court proceedings is denied as moot; 3 ) 

the orders and judgment appealed from are vacated; 4) the matter 

is remanded to the district court with instructions; and 5 ) the 

mandates shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3434 Document: 010110220142 Date Filed: 04/27/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-3434 Document: 010110220142 Date Filed: 04/27/1993 Page: 4