Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-10-01207/USCOURTS-ca10-10-01207-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sam Jahani
Appellee
John Moore
Appellant
Sam Jahani Personal Insurance Company
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 26, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN MOORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. SAM JAHANI; SAM JAHANI

PERSONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-1207

(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00428-ZLW)

ORDER

Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff John Moore, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s order

remanding his case to Colorado state court and the order denying reconsideration. 

This court directed the plaintiff to show cause as to why this appeal should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed a response. After

considering his response and the applicable law, we dismiss this appeal.

“The authority of appellate courts to review district-court orders remanding

removed cases to state court is substantially limited by statute.” Powerex Corp.

v. Reliant Energy Svcs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224, 229 (2007). Specifically, “[a]n order

remanding a case to State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on

Appellate Case: 10-1207 Document: 01018430001 Date Filed: 05/26/2010 Page: 1 
2

appeal or otherwise,” except for certain civil rights cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). 

This statutory section has been interpreted to preclude appellate review of

remands based on defects in the removal procedure and for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 (1996);

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

In this case, the district court found defects in the removal process. 

Specifically, the district court noted that only defendants, not plaintiffs, may

remove cases from state court and that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient

information in the notice of removal.

In his response to the order to show cause, the plaintiff asserted that civil

rights claims were at issue. The exception allowing appellate review of remand

orders in certain civil rights cases is reserved for defendants removing cases, not

plaintiffs. 28 U.S.C. § 1443.

In sum, because the district court remanded for defects in the removal

procedure and no exception applies, we do not have jurisdiction to review the

district court’s orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Kennedy at 1297.

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1207 Document: 01018430001 Date Filed: 05/26/2010 Page: 2