Pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 43( c) ( 2) , Paul J . M orr i s on i s s ubs t i tut ed for * Phi l l K l i ne as appel l ee i n t hi s act i on. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned ** unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t2,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT S T A T E O F K A N S A S , ex rel . P aul J . M o rriso n , A tto rn e yG e n e ra l,

* Pet i t i oner - A ppel l ee, v. DA VI D M AR TI N PRI CE; RO SEM AR Y D ENI SE P RI CE; J ANI CE L YNN KI NG, R espon den t s- A pp el l ants , and PRO SE A D V O CA TES, R e sp o n d e n t. N os . 07- 3016 & 07- 3024 ( D. C . No s . 0 6 - C V- 4 1 2 1 - J AR & 0 6 - CV- 4 0 8 2 - J AR) (D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T ** B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , M UR P HY , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es.-2-

R es pondent s - appel l ant s D avi d M ar t i n Pr i ce, R os emar yD eni s e Pr i ce, and J ani ce Lynn K i ng, pr ocee di ng pr o s e her e as i n the di s tr i ctcourt , appea l the d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s o r d e r s r e ma n d i n g th e u n d e r l y i n g l a ws u i tt o th e Ka n s a s S u p r e me C o u rtan d aw ard ing att o rne yfe es a n d co sts t o p eti ti o n er. W e h o ld tha t th is co u rt l acks j ur i s di ct i on overt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r emand or der s and w e di s m i s s the appea l s fr om t hos e or der s . W e do have j ur i s di ct i on overthe or der s foratt orney fe e s a n d c o s ts , h o w e v e r, a n d w e a ffir m th o s e o rd e rs . I. B ackgr ound T he K ans as A t t or neyG ener al , the pet i t i oner - appel l ee i n thi s appea l , fi l ed an or i gi nal act i on i n q u o w a rr a n to i n the K ansas Su prem e C ou rtagainst r es pondent s on A pr i l 27, 2006, s eeki ng t o enj oi n them from engagi ng i n the u n a u th o ri z e d p ra c tic e o f la w . T h e yw e re s e rv e d w ith th e p e titio n o n M a y1 , 2 0 0 6 . A l m os tt hr ee mont hs l at er , on J ul y26, 2006, r es pondent s fi l ed a not i ce of r emoval t o t he fe der al di s t r i ctcour t . T heycl ai m ed thatthe q u o w a rr a n to act i on vi ol at ed t hei rFi r s tA m endmentr i ghtt o as s i s tother s befor e the K ans as s t at e court s , even t hough t heyar e notl aw y er s . T hei rr emoval document s al s o i ncl uded count er cl ai m s as s ert i ng vi ol at i ons of thei rcons t i tut i onal r i ght s . O n A ugus t25, 2006, pet i t i onerm oved t o r emand t he ca s e t o the s t at e courtand r eques t ed an aw ar d of att or neyfee s and cos t s . T he di s tr i ctcourtr emanded t he ca s e on S e p tem b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 , an d g ra n ted p e tit io n e r’s m o tio n fo r a tto rn e yfe e s a n d c o stsT he fi r s tr emand or derw as i s s ued bya fe der al j udge s i t t i ng i n T opeka, 1 K a n sa s. M s. K in g filed th e se c o n d re m o v a l n o tice in W ich ita, K a n sa s, se e k in g to avoi d t he Topeka court . B utt he W i chi t a courtcl erk obs erved thatt he s econd r emoval not i ce pe r t ai ned t o t he s ame cas e as t he fi r s t , and tr ans ferr ed i tt o the fe d e ra l ju d g e a s s ig n e d to th e c a s e in T o p e k a . -3- upon pr es ent at i on of an i t emi zed s t at ement . A ft err evi ew i ng the i t emi zed st at em ent, t he d i stri ctcou rtenter ed an aw ard of att orneyfees and cost s agai nst resp o n d en ts fo r $4 , 4 9 3 . 3 8 . T h e d istri ct co u rtd en ied re sp o n d en ts’ m o ti o n fo r a new t r i al . T heyappea l ; t hi s act i on w as as s i gned appe al N o. 07- 3024. A ft ert he fe der al di s t r i ctcourtr emanded t he q u o w a rr a n to act i on, r es pondentJ ani ce L. K i ng fi l ed anothernot i ce of r emoval t o fede r al court , r el y i ng on t he s ame gr ounds as t he fi r s t . T he fe der al di s tr i ctcourtr emanded the ca s e on 1 D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 6 , an d a g a in a w a rd e d a tto rn e yfe e s a n d c o sts to p e tit io n e r, th is t i m e for$190. 80. R es pondent s ’ appea l of thos e or der s w as as s i gned appe al N o . 0 7 -3 0 1 6 . T h is c o u rt g ra n te d re s p o n d e n ts ’ m o tio n to c o n s o lid a te th e tw o a p p e a ls . B eca us e the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s rul i ngs and the i s s ues r ai s ed on appe al ar e i dent i cal fo r b o th a p p e a ls , w e c o n s id e r t h e m to g e th e r. T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i ons t o r emand forl ack of fede r al s ubj ect - m at t erj ur i s di ct i on and bec aus e the r emoval not i ces w er e unt i m el yunder 28 U . S. C . § 1446( b) . I n i t s rul i ng on j ur i s di ct i on, t he di s tr i ctcourthel d thatt he q u o w a rr a n to act i on i nvol ved s ol el ym at t er s of s t at e l aw , fede r al r emoval j ur i s di ct i on cannotbe conferr ed bya fe der al l y - bas ed defens e orcount er cl ai m , and-4-

re sp o n d e n ts’ re m o v a l n o tice s d id n o t alle g e th e re q u isite r a c ial-e q u a lityc laim s to q u a lif yfo r r e m o v a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 3 . O n appea l , r es pondent s ar gue that( 1) the q u o -w a rr a n to c o m p lain t fa iled to sta te a c laim u p o n w h ich re lief c a n b e g ra n ted , (2 ) n o K a n sa s la w p ro h ib its th e ir l egal - advi ce a ct i vi t i es , ( 3) t he fe der al cour thas j ur i s di ct i on overthe co n sti tuti o n al qu esti o n s raised in the irrem o v al m o ti o n s, (4) the d istri ct co u rt m isa p p lied § 1 4 4 3 b e c a u se C o n g re ss in ten d e d it t o a p p lyto a ll l iti g a n ts s e e k in g to rem ov e a case t o fed eral cou rt , and (5) theyhav e st and i ng t o b ri ng cl ai m s agai nst t he St at e of K ans as forvi ol at i ng thei rcons t i tut i onal r i ght s i n s t at e courtoragenc y proceed i ng s. T heyal so al l ege thatthe fe deral dis tri ctcou rtw as bi ased ag ai nst th e m b e c a u se th e ya re p ro se lit ig a n ts. T h e yf u rth e r c laim th a t an e x p a rte comm uni cat i on betw een the di s t r i ctcourtand pet i t i oner ’ s att or neypr ej udi ced th e m . W e con strue pro se l i t i gan t s’ pleadi ng s l i beral l yand ho l d them t o “a les s s t r i ngents t andar d t han form al pl eadi ngs dr aft ed byl aw y er s , ” butw e do notm ake le g a l a rg u m e n ts o r p e rfo rm le g a l r e s e a rc h fo r t h e m . G ar r et tv. Selby C onnor Maddux & Janer , 425 F. 3d 836, 840- 41 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( ci t at i on and quot at i on o m itted).-5- II. A n a lys is A . R em and O rder s T his cou rtdo es not have subj ect -m at t er j uri sdi ct i on ov er r espon den t s’ appea l of the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r emand or der s . T he r emand or der s ar e “not r evi ew abl e on appe al orot herw i s e. ” § 1447( d) . A s the Supr eme C our thas

“ re len tles slyre p e a ted [ ,] an yre m a n d o rd e r iss u e d o n th e g ro u n d s s p e c ified in § 1447( c) i s i m m uni zed f r om al l form s of appe l l at e r evi ew , w hetherornotthat or derm i ghtbe dee m ed err oneous byan appe l l at e court . ” K i r cherv. P utnam Fun ds Trust , ___ U . S. ___, 126 S. C t . 2145, 2153 ( 2006) ( quot at i on and al t er at i on o m itted). R e sp o n d e n ts re lyin p a rt o n 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 3 , “w h ich a llo w s re m o v a l to a d d re ss th e v io latio n o f a rig h t to ra c ial e q u a lityth a t is u n e n fo rc e a b le in sta te cour t . ” Hu n tv . L a mb , 427 F. 3d 725, 727 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . I n Johns on v. Mis s is s i ppi , 4 2 1 U . S . 2 1 3 , 2 1 9 (19 7 5 ), the S u p rem e C o u rtestab li sh ed a tw o -pa rt t es tforr emoval pet i t i ons fi l ed under§ 1443. “Fi r s t , i tm us tappea rthatthe r i ght al l egedl ydeni ed the r emoval pet i t i onerar i s es undera fe der al l aw pr ovi di ng for s peci fi c ci vi l r i ght s s t at ed i n t erm s of r aci al equal i ty . ” Id. (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). Second, t he r emoval pet i t i onerm us ts how thathe ors he “i s ‘ deni ed orcannot enfor ce’ t he s peci fi ed fe der al r i ght s ‘ i n the court s of [the] St at e. ’ ” Id. ( quot i ng 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 3 (1 )); s ee als o Mar t i n v. Fr ankl i n C api talC or p. , 251 F. 3d 1284, 12 90 (10t h C i r. 20 01 ) ( ho l ding bu rden i s on p artyseeki ng rem ov al t o est abli sh-6-

fe d e ra l ju ri s d ic tio n ). R es pondent s ar gue thatC ongr es s i nt ended § 1443 t o appl yt o al l r emoval pet i t i ons , i ncl udi ng t hei r s , r ai s i ng cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s . B uttheyhave c i t ed no author i t yt o s uppor tt hei rar gum ent . I ndeed, the Supr eme C our thas hel d that § 1443 does notappl yt o cl ai m s as s er t i ng vi ol at i ons of r i ght s under g e n e ra lly-a p p lic a b le c o n s titu tio n a l o r s ta tu to ry p ro v is io n s . Johns on , 421 U . S. at 2 1 9 ; a c c o rdMill e r v . L a m b e th , 4 4 3 F .3 d 7 5 7 , 7 6 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h e rig h ts r es pondent s cl ai m w er e deni ed them i n the q u o w a rr a n to act i on “ar e not , i n the lan g u a g e o f

th e sta tu te, rig h ts a risin g u n d e r a n ylaw p ro v id in g fo r th e e q u a l civ il r i ght s of U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens . ” C ol o. v. Lopez , 9 1 9 F . 2 d 1 3 1 , 1 3 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). T h e re fo re , § 1 4 4 3 d o e s n o t a p p ly. A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d t hatthi s cour ti s w i thoutj ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the dis t ri ctcou rt ’s orders rem and i ng the case to the K ansas Su prem e C ou rt . A s a con sequen ce, w e do no tadd res s the m eri t s of respond ents ’ cl ai m s, i ncludi ng tho se per t ai ni ng t o t he mer i t s of the q u o w a rr a n to act i on oranyr el at ed ac t i ons t aken by t he K ans as St at e author i t i es . W e ar e s i m i l ar l yw i thoutj ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s o rd e rs d e n y in g th e irm o tio n s to re c o n s id e r t h e re m a n d o rd e rs . See § 1 4 4 7 (d).-7- B . O rder s A w ardi ng A t t orneyF ees and C ost s A l t hough w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on overthe r emand or der s , w e do have s ubj ect - m at t erj ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der s aw ar di ng at t orney fe e s a n d c o s ts to p e titio n e r. Topeka Hous . A uth. v. Johns on , 404 F. 3d 1245, 1248 (10t h C i r. 20 05 ). “A cou rt ’s decis i on t o g ranta fee aw ard i s r eview ed fo r abuse of di s cr et i on, w hi l e the under l y i ng l egal anal y s i s i s r evi ew ed de novo. ” Id. ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . A w ar ds of att orneyfee s and cos t s i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs ar e author i zed unde r§ 1447( c) . “[T] he s t andar d foraw ar di ng fee s s houl d turn on t he r eas onabl enes s of the r emoval . ” Mar t i n v. Fr ankl i n C api talC or p. , 54 6 U. S. 132, ___, 125 S. C t . 704, 711 ( 2005) . T her e i s no pr es um pt i on t o aw ar d fee s or n o t to a w a rd th e m . Id. at709- 11. “A bs entunus ual ci r cumst ance s , court s m ay aw ar d at t or ney ’ s fee s under§ 1447( c) onl yw her e the r emovi ng partyl acke d an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e bas i s fors eeki ng r emoval . C onver s el y , w hen an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e bas i s exi s t s , fee s s houl d be deni ed. ” Id. at711. R es pondent s do notchal l enge the r eas onabl enes s of the amountof att orney fe es a n d co sts aw ard ed to p eti ti o n er. I n stead , theyasse rtthat the d istri ct co u rt di d notcompl yw i t h t he Equal A cce s s t o J us t i ce A ct( E A J A ) , 5 U . S. C . § 504; 28 U . S. C . § 2412( d) ( 1) ( A ) . T heyal s o s eek a n or derr equi r i ng pet i t i onert o pay their co sts pu rsua n t t o the E A JA . T h e E A JA is no t app li ca b le; att o rne yfe es w ere a w a rd e d p u rs u a n t to § 1 4 4 7 (c ).-8-

W e have r evi ew ed the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der s gr ant i ng at t orneyfee s and cos t s t o pet i t i oneracc or di ng t o t he Ma rtin s ta n d a rd s . See Ma rtin , 1 2 5 S . C t. at 7 0 9 -1 1 . W e fin d n o e rro r in th e d istric t co u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t re sp o n d e n ts d id nothave a n obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e bas i s fors eeki ng r emoval and w e conc l ude t hatt he di s t r i ctcourtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n aw ar di ng $4, 493. 38 for at t or neyfee s and cos t s i n cas e N o. 06- C V - 4082- J A R ( appea l N o. 07- 3024) , and $1 90 . 80 i n case N o. 06 -C V -4121 -J A R (appeal N o. 07 -3016 ). R espon den t s’ r eques tforan aw ar d of cos t s i s deni ed. C . Judici al B i as R es pondent s as s ertt hatt he di s tr i ctcour tw as bi as ed aga i ns tthem, orat lea st g a v e th e a p p e a ra n c e o f b ias . T h e yre lyo n th e d istric t co u rt’s s tate m e n t in its o rd e r d e n y in g th e ir re q u e st to file a n a m e n d e d n o tice o f re m o v a l th a t ev e n if th e c o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n , itw o u ld n o t g ra n t th e m o tio n b e c a u se re sp o n d e n ts d id notcompl yw i t h Fed. R . C i v. P. 15( a) . T heym ai nt ai n thatgener al l ythe l aw does notappl yuni form l y , cons t i tut i onal l y , orful l yt o pr o s e l i t i gant s , buttheyoffe rno s p e c ific in s ta n c e s to s u p p o rt th is c h a rg e . R e sp o n d e n ts a lso a lleg e th a t th e d istric t co u rt h e ld a n e x p a rte comm uni cat i on w i t h pet i t i oner ’ s att orneythatpr ej udi ced them. T heyi dent i fyno ex part e comm uni cat i on, how ever . R ather , theyappar ent l ycont end thatthe di s t r i ctcourt ’ s agr eementw i t h l egal ar gum ent s m ade bypet i t i oner ’ s att orney d e m o n s tr a te d th e c o u rt ’s b ia s a g a in s t th e m .R e sp o n d e n ts filed a p re v io u s m o tio n fo r c lar ifica tio n , als o se e k in g to 2 d isq u a lifyth e S tate ’s a tto rn e y , b u t o n th e g ro u n d th a t h e w a s n o t au th o riz e d to par t i ci pat e as a part y . T hatm ot i on w as deni ed. -9- “[J ] udi ci al rul i ngs al one al m os tnevercons t i tut e a va l i d bas i s fora bi as or par t i al i t ym ot i on. ” Li t ekey v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 1 0 U .S . 5 4 0 , 5 5 5 (1 9 9 4 ). Fur t herm or e, “opi ni ons form ed bythe j udge on the bas i s of fa ct s i ntr oduced or even t s occurri ng i n the cou rs e of the curr ent pr oceed i ng s, or of p ri or proceedings, d o n o tc o n s t i tu t e a b a s i s fo ra b i a s o rp a r t i a l i ty m o t i o n u n l e s s th e y d i s p l a y a deep- s eat ed fa vor i t i s m orant agoni s m thatw oul d m ake fai rj udgm enti m pos s i bl e. ” Id. R es pondent s ’ uns uppor t ed al l egat i ons ar e i ns uffi ci entt o carrythei r“hea vy b u rd e n ” to d e m o n s tr a te ju d ic ia l b ia s . Topeka Hous . A uth. , 4 0 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 8 . I I I. P endi ng Mot i ons R es pondent s have f

i l ed a “ M ot i on forC l ar i fi cat i on” s eeki ng di s qual i fi cat i on of the att or neyr epr es ent i ng the pet i t i oneri n thes e appe al s and r ever s al of the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or der s aw ar di ng at t or neyfee s forhi s pr ofes s i onal serv ices, on the g rou n d that K an sas s tat e statutes d o n o t auth o ri ze the S tat e to h ir e pri vate cou nsel . R espon den t s have reprodu ced n um erous K ansas st atutes , 2 compri s i ng four t een a nd one- hal f page s of thei rm ot i on. T heyhave notexpl ai ned, h o w e v e r, w h yth o se sta tu tes e n tit le th e m to re lief, ex c e p t to a rg u e th a t quo w a rr a n to d o e s n o t ap p lyto th e m a n d th e se lec ted sta tu tes d o n o t sp e c ifica lly authori ze t he S t at e t o en gag e pri vate coun sel . T he m oti on i s denied becau se r es pondent s have notes t abl i s hed gr ounds t o di s qual i fyt he St at e’ s couns el and-10-

beca us e thi s courtl acks j ur i s di ct i on overthe di s tr i ctcour t ’ s or derr emandi ng the c a s e to th e s ta te c o u rt . A l s o pendi ng i s r es pondent s ’ “M ot i on R eques t i ng O r derof C eas e and D e sis t” a sk in g th is c o u rt to o rd e r th e S tate n o t to p u rsu e its re m e d ies u n d e r sta te law an d to req u ir e itto return m o n ies alread yco ll ec ted. A g ain, be ca u se th is co u rt do es not have jur i sdi ct i on ov er the d i stri ctcou rt ’s rem and order, res po nd ents ’ m o tio n is d e n ie d . I V. C oncl us i on T h e p en d ing m o ti o n s are d en ied. T h e a p p ea ls from the re m an d o rde rs are D I SM I SSE D forl ack of s ubj ect - m at t erj ur i s di ct i on. T he or der s of the di s tr i ct c o u r ta wa r d i n g a t t o r n e yfe e s a n d c o s t s t o th e p e t i t i o n e ra r e AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

D eane l l R eec e Tacha C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge