Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01125/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01125-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donna Caldwell
Not Party
Kwikway Stores, Inc.
Appellee
James Waits
Appellant

Document Text:

PILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci!:cuit 

OCT 2 9 1990 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

KWIKWAY STORES, INC., a Colorado 

Corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

DONNA CALDWELL, 

Defendant, 

and 

JAMES WAITS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-1125 

(D.C. No. 90-F-608) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges.** 

Defendant-appellant James Waits appeals prose from the 

district court's denial of his petition to remove this action from 

the Colorado state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 & 1446. 

* 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. 

** 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 cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-1125 Document: 010110064907 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 1 
The district court held that removal was improper because Waits 

failed to serve all defendants and filed his removal petition more 

than thirty days after being served. See 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1446(a) & (b); United States v. Bluewater-Toltec Irrigation 

District, 580 F. Supp 1434, 1441 (D.N.M. 1984), aff'd, 806 F.2d 

986 (10th Cir. 1968). 

"If a trial judge purports to remand a case on the ground 

that it was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction, his 

order is not subject to challenge in the court of appeals by 

appeal, by mandamus, or otherwise." Thermtron Prod. v. 

Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 343 (1976); see 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1447(c) & (d). Where a district court remands on the sole 

basis that the defendant failed to follow proper removal 

procedure, appellate review is precluded even if the district 

court had jurisdiction over the matter. See FDIC v. Alley, 820 

F.2d 1121, 1123 (10th Cir. 1987). 

In the instant case, the district court found that Waits had 

improperly removed the action and consequently declined to 

exercise its removal jurisdiction. Although the district court, 

having failed to receive all necessary papers from the state 

court, did not actually remand the case back to state court, we 

are convinced that the court's denial of Waits's removal motion 

had the same effect as a remand for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1147(c) & (d). By the express terms of 28 u.s.c. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1125 Document: 010110064907 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 2 
• § 1447(c) & (d), we do not have jurisdiction to review this 

determination. Waits's appeal is DISMISSED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1125 Document: 010110064907 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 3