Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-03346/USCOURTS-ca10-07-03346-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Willis Shane Gordon
Appellant
State of Kansas
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIS SHANE GORDON, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF KANSAS, 

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 07-3346

(D.C. No. 5:07-CV-03166-SAC)

ORDER

Filed December 7, 2007

Before HENRY, GORSUCH and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.

The appellant removed child neglect proceedings from Kansas state court to

the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The district court, after

reviewing the notice of removal and pleadings subsequently filed by the appellant,

summarily remanded to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4) (“If it appears from

the face of the [notice of removal] and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal

should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand.”). The

Appellate Case: 07-3346 Document: 010181864 Date Filed: 12/07/2007 Page: 1
2

court concluded that there was no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, and,

therefore, removal was inappropriate. 

A remand order based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not appealable.

See 28 § 1447(d) (with an exception not applicable here, provides that “[a]n order

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

appeal or otherwise.”); Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, 127 S.Ct. 2411,

2417 (2007) (“We hold that when a district court remands a properly removed case

because it nonetheless lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the remand is ... shielded

from review by § 1447(d).”); Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 126 S.Ct. 2145, 2153

(2006) (“[W]e have relentlessly repeated that ‘any remand order issued on the

grounds specified in § 1447(c) [is immunized from all forms of appellate review],

whether or not that order might be deemed erroneous by an appellate court.’”)

(quoting Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 351 (1976));

Flores v. Long, 110 F.3d 730, 732, 733 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding that, even if the

district court “employed erroneous principles in concluding that it was without

jurisdiction,” there is no appellate jurisdiction to review a remand order entered in

a removed case which is “based to a fair degree upon the court’s finding that it 

Appellate Case: 07-3346 Document: 010181864 Date Filed: 12/07/2007 Page: 2
3

lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case”) (internal quotes omitted).

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Ellen Rich Reiter

Deputy Clerk/Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 07-3346 Document: 010181864 Date Filed: 12/07/2007 Page: 3