Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02129/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02129-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Community Bank
Appellee
County of Los Alamos
Appellee
William Deal
Appellee
Christina Files
Appellee
First National Bank of Santa Fe
Appellee
Patricia Hanson
Appellee
Bruce Kormick
Appellee
Los Alamos Medical Center
Appellee
Los Alamos National Bank
Appellee
Los Alamos National Security, LLC
Appellee
New Mexico Attorney General
Appellee
Deborah Robinson
Appellant
Eveline Robinson
Not Party
Byron Smith
Appellee
United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

DEBORAH ROBINSON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

EVELINE ROBINSON, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

BRUCE KORMICK; BYRON SMITH; 

CHRISTINA FILES; PATRICIA 

HANSON; LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL 

BANK; COMMUNITY BANK; LOS 

ALAMOS MEDICAL CENTER; FIRST 

NATIONAL BANK OF SANTA FE; 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR 

THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO; 

COUNTY OF LOS ALAMOS; LOS 

ALAMOS NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC; 

WILLIAM DEAL; NEW MEXICO 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-2129

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00839-KG-LF)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Pro se party Deborah Robinson appeals the district court’s order declining to 

reconsider its order remanding the underlying case to New Mexico state court. After the 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 27, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-2129 Document: 01019646806 Date Filed: 06/27/2016 Page: 1 
2

appeal was opened, the clerk’s office notified the appellant that the appeal might be 

subject to summary disposition for lack of appellate jurisdiction and directed the 

appellant to file a memorandum brief addressing the potentially dispositive jurisdictional 

issue. See 10th Cir. R. 27.3(B). The appellant filed a memorandum brief. After careful 

review of the appellant’s arguments, the record, and applicable law, we dismiss this 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Our threshold inquiry is whether we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. 

Flores v. Long, 110 F.3d 730, 731 (10th Cir. 1997). “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 appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 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)). 

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

the removed action. Lack of jurisdiction is a recognized ground in § 1447(c) for 

remanding to state court, which in turn dictates that this court lacks jurisdiction to review 

the district court’s decision to remand the case to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see 

also Topeka Housing Auth., 404 F.3d at 1248. Furthermore, and also because the district 

court remanded for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, this court lacks jurisdiction 

Appellate Case: 16-2129 Document: 01019646806 Date Filed: 06/27/2016 Page: 2 
3

to review the lower court’s order denying reconsideration of the remand order. The 

appellant’s arguments in her memorandum brief do not persuade us otherwise. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-2129 Document: 01019646806 Date Filed: 06/27/2016 Page: 3