### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10389
J O H N W IL E YP R IC E , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. E D D IE B E R N IC E J O H N S O N , D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lla n t,

A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ct of T exas
B ef ore R E A V L E Y , D A V IS, an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui t Ju dg es . R E A V L E Y , C i rcui t Ju dg e: T h i s c ase ari ses ou t of a di spu t e betw een t w o T e x a s pu bl i c of f i ci al s. P u rsu a n t to state p roce d u ra l ru l es, A p p ell ee J oh n W i l ey P ri ce, a D a l l a s C ou n ty C om m i ssi on er, soug hta n order i n st ate c ou rt t o t ak e an i n vest i gatory dep osi t i on o f Appe l l antCong r essw om an E dd i e B erni ce John son. R ep. Joh n son r e m o ve d t he
m a t t e r t o fe d e r a l c o u r t u n d e r t h e fe d e r a l o f f i c e r r e m o v a l s t a t u t e , 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 4 4 2 (a )( 1 ) , b u t t h e d is t r ic t c o u r t r e m a n d e d it to s t a t e c o u r t b e c a u s e P r ic e ’s pe t i t i o n was no t a “ c i vi l a c t i o n” s ubj e c t t o r e m oval. Rep
. J o hns o n a ppe al s t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s o r de r . W e l ac k j ur i s di c t i o n t o r e vi e w t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s r e m and o r d e r , a n d w e D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l. United States Court of A pp eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 11, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10389 Document: 00511049094 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 10389

Th e st a teru lep rovid es : 1 A p er so nmayp etitio nth e co u rtf oran or derau th oriz in gth e taki n go f a depositi on on oralex amin atio n or writtenqu estion s either : (a) t o p er p et ua t e or ob tainth e pe rson’s own t estimony or thatof anyoth er personfor use in an anticipated suit; o r (b) t o i nv estig ate a po tentialcl aim or suit. T EX . R. C IV . P. 202 .1.
The statut e states, i n releva nt part: 2 A civil acti on or c rimin al prosecutioncommenced in a S tate court a gainst any of th e fo llo wingm ayberemove d byth em toth e di strict court of the Unit ed Sta tes for thedis tri ct anddivis ion em brac ing the plac e whe reinit is pen ding:
2 I. T h e g en esi s of

the di spu t e b et w een C om m i ssi on er P ri ce an d R ep. Joh n son i s an i n t ervi ew t h at t h e C on gressw om an gave i n D ecem ber 200 8 to t h e D al l as O bserve ri n w h i ch she a l l eged l y m ad e s ta te m en t s questi on i n g C om m i ssi on er Pr i c e ’ s e t hi c s a nd a c c us i ng hi m o f “ s hak i ng do w n” parti es i nvo l ve d i n a l and d ev elop m en t. A s a resu l t of th e i n terv i ew , C om m i ssion er P ri ce fi l ed i n the 14 th Jud i c i alD i s t r i ct Cour t o f D al l as Count y, Te xa s a Ver i f i e d Pe t i t i o n To Tak e D eposi t i on B ef

ore Su i t un der T exas R u l e of C i vi l P rocedure 202
. 1. T h e peti t i on 1 st ated t h at Pri ce di d not kn ow w h et h er h e i n t en ded t o pu rsue a l aw sui t against R ep . Jo h n son bu t sou gh t t o tak e th e C o n g r e ssw om a n ’ s d ep ositi on i n ord er to in v e s tig a te p o te n tia l cla im s fo r d e fa m a tio n . R ep. Joh n son rem oved t h e peti t i on t o t h e U n i t ed Stat es D i st ri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ct of T exas, ci t i n g as groun ds f or r em oval t h e federal of f i cer rem oval st atute, 28 U
. S
. C
. § 144 2( a) ( 1)
. T h at st atute perm i t s in tera lia r em oval t o fe de r al cou rt w h e n a “ c i vi l a c t i o n” ha s b e e n f i l e d a ga i ns t a n o f

f i c e r o f t he U n i t ed S t ates w h o w as act i n g u n der col or of her of f i ce. R ep. Joh n son assert ed 2 Case: 09-10389 Document: 00511049094 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 10389

(1) The Unit ed State s or anyagencyth ereo f or anyofficer (or a nyper son acti ng und er thatoffic er) o f th e United State s or of a nyagencyth ereo f, sue d inan offici al or indivi dual capacity for any act und er colo r of su ch officeor on acco unt of a nyri ght, tit le or auth oritycl aimed und er a nyAct o f C ongress forth e appreh ensi on or p uni shmentof crimin als or the coll ectio n of th e reve nue . 2 8U .S .C
. § 1 4 4 2 (a)( 1 ). 98 6 F .2d 9 12, 914(5th Cir. 1 993) (“Prior to r eviewin g the m er it s of anyca se, this 3 C ourtmu stb e sati sf

ie d th a t ith a s s ubj ec t matt era n d a pp ellatej u ri sdic ti on .” ). 172 F.3d 923, 925 (5th Cir. 1999) (d isc uss ing Th e r m tronProds . , Inc
. v. H e r m ansdorfer , 4 4 2 3 U .S
. 3 3 6 , 3 4 3 , 9 6S
. C t. 5 8 4 , 5 8 9( 1 9 7 6))
. 3 i n her rem oval n o tice th a t she w as t h e subj ect of a pre- sui t di scovery act i on u n der T exas R u l e 202
. 1 that c on cerned acti on s t ak en b y h er u n der col or of her of f i ce as a U n i t ed S t ates R epresentati ve an d M em ber of t h e H ou se. Up o n m o t i o n b y Co m m i s s i o n e r Pr i c e , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e m and e d t he pe t i t i o n t o s t at e c o ur t . The di s t r i c t c o ur t r e as o ne d t hata Rul e 2 02
. 1 pr o c e e di ng in s ta te co u r t is n o t a re m o v a b l e “ c iv il a c tio n ” u n d e r § 1 4 4 2 (a )(1 ) b e c a u s e it assert s no cl ai m up on w h i ch rel i ef can b e g ran t ed an d i n st ead seeks an order f or a de po s i t i o n t hatm ay o r m ay n ot resu l t i n t he f i l i ng o f a n a c t uals ui t . Rep
. Jo hns o n c hal l e nge s t he di s t r i c t co ur t ’ s or de r o n a ppe al
. W e f i r s t m us t e xa m i ne o u r o w n a p p e lla te ju r is d ic tio n . Se e Bade rv . At l
. I nt ’l, Lt d. 3 II. A r e m and o r d e r i s g e n e r a l l y b a r r e d f r o m a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w b y 2 8 U. S
. C. § 144 7( d), w h i ch provides t h at “ [ a] n order r em an di n g a case to th e State court fr o m w h ic h it w a s r e m o v e d is n o t re v ie w a b le o n a p p e a l o r o th e r w is e . . . . ” T h is bar to re v iew a pp l i es even i f t h e order m i gh t ot h erw i se be deem ed erroneou s. S m i t h v. T

ex. C h i l d ren’

s Hosp . T h e im m u n ity fr o m a p p e lla te re v ie w is

4
nar r o w e d, ho w e ve r , w he n § 14 47 ( d) i s r ead in p a ri m a ter ia wi t h 2 8 U. S
. C. § 144 7( c) , so t h at onl y rem an d or ders based on grou n ds recogni zed i n § 1447 ( c) Case: 09-10389 Document: 00511049094 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 10389

516 U.S . 124, 127–28, 116 S. Ct. 494 , 497 (199 5) (c itin g Th er mt ro nP ro ds. , 423U.S. 5 a t 3 4 5

– 4 6 , 9 6S
. C t. at 5 9 0

– 9 1 ). Id
. ; see28U.S.C . § 144 7(c) (“A motionto reman d th e ca se onth e b asis of a nydefe ct 6 othe r th an lack of subj ect matter jurisdiction must be made within30day s afte r th e filin g of the notice o f removal unde r section1446 (a). If at any time before final j udg ment it appears th a t th e di st rictc ourtl a ck s s ubj ec t matt erj u ri sdic ti on , th e ca sesh a llb e re ma n de d. ”)
. 92 3 F. 2 d 40 6 , 40 8(5thC ir
. 1 9 9 1 ) (i n te rn a l qu ot a tiono mitt ed); see also In re W eaver , 7 610F .2d 3 35, 337(5th Cir. 1 980) (ho ldin g that co urt is preclu ded fro m reviewin g reman d or der wh er e di st rictc ourtdidn otc le a rlyr elyo nan on -§ 1 4 4 7 (c ) groun d fo r re ma n d) ; Inre Merrimack Mut . F

ire I ns. Co. , 587 F.2d 64 2, 648(5th Cir. 197 8) (“ [I]t appears th at Ther mtro n was intende d to be strictly limit ed toth ose c ases i n whicha distric t j udge h as actuallystat ed th a t h e isn otr elyin go n§ 1 4 4 7 (c) ino rd erin gar em a n d. ”)
. 9 3 7F .2 d 1 8 4 , 1 8 5

– 8 6( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 1 ); see a lso Niagra Mohawk Power Cor p. v. Banke rs 8 Trus t Co. of Al bany, N. A. , U. S. , 79 1 F .2d 242 , 244 (2d Cir. 198 6) (“Th e remov al statut e u sed byth e gov ernme nt in this case, 28 U.S.C. § 144 2(a)(1 ), confe rs jurisdictionas well as th e ri ght of r em ov a l. ”)
. 4 a r e u n r e v ie w a b le
. Thi ngs Rem e m be r e d, I nc . v . Pe t r arc a . T h ose groun ds are 5 defec t s i n t h e rem oval procedu re orl ack of sub j ect m att er j u ri sdi ct i on . Th ere 6 is n o co n te n tio n in th is c a s e o f a d e fe c t in th e r e m o v a l p r o c e d u r e . T h e r e fo r e , if t h e di st ri ct court ’ s r em an d or der w as based on a l ack of j u ri sdi ct i on , w e m ay n ot r e v ie w th e o r d e r in th is a p p e a l. In order t o exerci se our app el l ate j u ri sdi ct i on , w e requi re t h at t h e di st ri ct court’ s or der cl earl y show t h e rem an d w as n ot b a s e d o n § 1 4 4 7 (c ): “[W ]e w ill o n ly revi ew rem an d or ders i f t h e di st ri ct court af f i rm ati vel y st ates a n o n -144 7( c) gr ou n d f

or re m a n d
. ” S ol ey v. F irs t Nat’ lB an k of

C om m erc e . A s noted above, 7 t h e d is t r ic t c o u r t r e m a n d e d t h e p e t it io n b e c a u s e i t d id n o t s a t is fy § 1 4 4 2 (a )( 1 )’s re q u ire m e n t of a “civ ila ctio n .” T h is w a s n o t a clea r a ffi rm a tiv e sta te m e n t of a
no n- 14 47 ( c ) g r o und, a nd i t m ay no t b e r e vi e w e d. W e ha ve pr e vi o us l y he l d t hatt h e fa i l ur e t o s at i s f y § 1 44 2 de pr i ve s t he fe d e r a l co u r t o f s u b je c t m a tt e r ju r is d ic tio n . Se e G uada l upe - Bl anc o Ri v e rAut h.
v . C ity o f Ly tle
. T h eref ore, fai rl y read, the di st ri ct cou rt ’ s rem an d order based 8
on t h e bel i ef

t h at t h e peti t i on w as not r em ovab l e un der § 144 2( a) ( 1) w as based Case: 09-10389 Document: 00511049094 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 10389

See, e.g., Weaver , 61 0 F .2d at 337(ho ldin g that altho ugh distric t co urt did n ot c ite 9 spe c if ic lan gu age o f § 144 7(c) in reman d or der butbe lieve d th e ca se was not remov abl e, th e “l ogic a l infe re n ce” wa s th a t th e co u rtf elt j u ri sdic ti onwa s l a ckin g). Guadalu pe-Blan co , 93 7 F .2d at 1 85. 10 Id
. Secti on 144 2(a)(1 ) ha s sin ce b eename nded to permit agenci es as well as o fficers 11 tor em ove su chsuit s. SeePub
. L
. No
. 1 0 4 -3 1 7 , 1 1 0S tat. 3 8 4 7 , § 2 0 6 (a)( 1 ) (1 9 9 6).

Guadalu pe-Blan co , 93 7 F .2d at 1 85. 12 Wen ote that in the “Ju risdiction al State ment” of h er b rief to this court, R ep. J ohn son 13 a ck n ow le dgedth a t th e di st rictc ourt ’ssubj ec t matt erju ri sdic ti onaro sef ro m § 1 4 4 2
. W e a ls o note that, unlike the Tex as state rul es, the Fede ral Rules of C ivil Pro cedur e, which would be a pp licab let o th e re mov edp etitio n , don otp er mit pr e- su iti nv es ti g a tiv e de po siti on s. SeeF ED . R. C IV . P. 2 7 (a). 5 on a l ac k o f

s ubj e c t m at t e r j ur i s di c t i o n. W e f i nd G u ad alupe- B l an co t o b e 9 i n st ructi ve. I n t h at c ase, t w o federal agen c y defenda n t s r em oved t o f ederal court a s t at e s ui t t o adj udi c at e w at er ri ght s and m ove d to di sm i ss bas ed o n so ver ei gn im m u n ity
. T h e v e r s io n o f § 1 4 4 2 (a ) ( 1 ) in e ffe c t a t t h a t t im e d id n o t p e r m it

10 agen ci es t o asser t federal of f i cer rem oval— on l y federal of f i cers coul d d o so. 11 B ecau se t h e defen da n t s c ou l d n ot rel y on § 1442 ( a) ( 1) a s th e b a sis f or j ur i s di ct i on , a nd t he r e w as no o t he r b as i s f o r fe de r alc o ur t j ur i s di c t i o n i n t he c as e , w e he l d t hatt he r e w as no s ubj e c t m at t e r j ur i s di c t i o n a nd di s m i s s e d t he a p p e a l. 12 Th e sa m e r at i onal e appl i es i n t hi s c as e. The di st r i c t c our t c onc l uded t hat R ep. Joh n son could not r el y on § 1442 ( a) ( 1) , a l t h ou gh for a reason di f ferent f rom G u ad alupe- B l an co , vi z. th e l a ck of a “ci vil a cti on . ” T h ere i s n o oth e r b a s is ap pa rent on t h e rec ord f or f eder a l j u ri sdi ct i on . B ecau se § 144 2( a) ( 1) i s a 13 j u ris d ic tion a l statu te, the distri ct cou rt’ s f i n d i n g th a t R ep . Jo h n son fa i l ed to s at i s f y t he s t at ut e ’ s r e qui r e m e nt s l e ad s t o t he na t ur alc o nc l usi o n t hatt he di st ri ct court fel t t h ere w as no su bj ect m att er j u ri sdi ct i on , an d t h e app eal m u st be di s m i s s e d. Case: 09-10389 Document: 00511049094 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 10389

5 1 9U .S
. 6 1 , 1 1 7S
. C t. 4 6 7( 1 9 9 6). 14 Id
. at65 , 11 7 S . C t. at 4 71. 15 Id
. 16 Id
. at73 , 11 7 S . C t. at 4 75. 17 6 Rep. Jo hns o n ar gue s t hatt he Supr e m e C o ur t i n C a ter p ill a r In c. v. L ew is 14 recogni zed a d i st i n ct i on betw een subj ect m att er j u ri sdi ct i on an d the st atutor y r equi r em ent s per m i t t i ng r em ovalt o fede r al c our t . Sh e t her ef or e sugge st s t hat t he “ c i vi l a cti on ” r equi r em ent f or r em ovalunder § 1 442( a) ( 1) i s m er el y a st atutor y el e m e n t the fai l u re of w h i ch does n ot i m pl i cat e subj ect m att er j uri sdi c t i on. U nder t hi s r eas oni ng, t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s r em a n d w oul d not be ba sed o n § 1 44 7( c ) a nd c o ul d b e r e vi e w e d. W e f i nd t he a r gum e nt a nd t he ci t ati on t o C a ter

p ill a r un persua si ve. I n Cat e r

pi l l ar , the C ou rt ha d to de ci d e w h eth er th e a b sen ce of com p l ete d i ve rsit y, as req u i red b y 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 4 4 1 (a), a t th e ti m e of rem ov a l w a s fa tal t o a fe de r alc o ur t a dj udi c at i o n e ve n t ho ugh t he de fe c t ha d be e n c ur e d b y t he di sm i ss al of

a non- di ver se d efen dant be f or e t r i al and w as no l ongerpr es ent at t he t i m e t he di s t r i c t co ur t ent e r e d j udg m e nt . The Supr e m e C o ur t hel d t hatt he 15 j udg m e nt c o u l d st and
. I n do i ng s o , t he Cour t no t e d t hata l t ho ugh t he 16

“j ur i s di c t i o nalde fe c t ” ha d b e e n c ur e d i n t he c as e b y t he t i m e o f j udg m e nt , t he

“ st atutor y f

l aw ” of fai l i n g t o m eet § 1441 ( a) ’ s r equ i rem en t s at t h e t i m e of
r e m o v a l “r e m a in e d in th e u n e r a s a b le h is to r y o f th e ca s e .” B u t t h e C o u r t d id 17 not di st urb t he j udgm ent be c ause t he f ede r al j uri sdi c t i onalre q u i r em ent s had b e e n m e t a t t h e t i m e j u d g m e n t wa s e n t e r e d
. Re p . J o h n s o n a s s e r t s t h at t he q u oted l a n gu a ge n ece ssa ri l y m ea n s th a t no t eve ry asp ect of a rem ov a l statu te concerns sub j ect m att er j u ri sdi ct i on . W e ackn ow l edg e t h at t h e C ou rt spoke of bo t h a j ur i s di c t i o nalde fe c t a nd a s t at ut o r y vi o l at i o n i n Cat e r pi l l ar , but i n t hat Case: 09-10389 Document: 00511049094 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 10389

See id. ; seeals o Gr upo Dataf luxv. AtlasGloba l G roup , L.P. , 541 U.S. 567, 574 , 12 4 18 S. C t. 192 0, 1 92 6 (200 4) (stating th at Cat erpillar’sh ol di n gwa s th a t ast a tuto ryd ef ec t, i .e ., failure to me et the § 1 441 (a) r equirement th at the case be fit fo r fede ral adj udicat ionatth e time th e re moval pe titio n is filed, “did not require dismissal onceth ere was nolo nger a ny j u ri sdic ti on a l de fe ct”)
.

See Grupo Dataflux , 54 1 U .S. at57 2–7 3, 1 24 S. C t. at 1 925 (noti ngth at Cat erpillar 19 “bro ke n o new gro und” and merely appli ed alo ng -recogniz ed e xce ptionto the “time-of-filin g rule” th a t j u ri sdic ti onmu ste xis t wh enth e a ctio ni s b ro u gh t)
.

Cat erpillar , 54 1 U .S. at77 , 11 7 S . C t. at 4 77. 20 Id
. ( em ph a si s a dd ed). 21 7 case t h e t w o w ere t h e sam e, i
. e. , t h e a bsen ce of com pl et e di versi t y. Th e C ou rt 18
w as m e r e l y e xp l ai ni ng t he q ue s t i o n i t ha d t o a ddr e s s i n t he c as e due t o t he t i m i n g of

t h e defect an d i t s c u re. 19 Cat e r pi l l ardi d n ot di rect l y ad dress t h e qu est i on i n t h i s c ase of w h et h er th e r e m a n d fo r fa ilu r e to s a tis fy th e re m o v a l s ta tu te is u n r e v ie w a b le b e c a u s e it i s based on a l ack of j u ri sdi ct i on . Al ater port i on of th e opi n i on i s i n st ructi ve, h ow ev er. T h e r e s p o n d en t t h ere ass erted tha t i f th e j u d gm en t w a s all ow ed to st an d, despi t e t h e i n i t i al st atutor y defec t i n t h e rem oval, t h e procedu ral rul es f or r em ovalw oul d i n ef fec t be c om e unenf

or c eabl e a nd defendant s w oul d be
en couraged t o rem ove cases prem aturel y. T h e Cat e r pi l l arC o ur t rej e c t e d t he 20
ar gum e nt a nd n o t e d t hat t hi s w as unl i ke l y be c aus e a “ w e l l

- ad vi s e d” de fe nda nt w o ul d f

o r e s e e t he r e s ul t o f a t t e m pt i ng t o r e m o ve w i t ho ut m eet i ng t he req u i rem en ts o f th e rem ov a l statu te: “a sw i ft an d non revi ew ab l e r e m and o r d e r .” T h a t is p r e c is e ly th e o u tc o m e w a r r a n te d in th e in s ta n t c a s e .

21 Rep. J o hns o n al s o a r gue s i n he r s upp l e m e nt all e t t e r b r i e f t hatb e c aus e t he At t o r ne y G e ne r al ha s de t e r m i ne d un de r t he W e s t fal l Ac t t hats he w as a c t i ng w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f

h e r fe d e r a l e mp l o y me n t , s h e i s i mmu n e f r o m a n y c l a i ms aga i n st her un der t h e F ederal T ort C l ai m s A ct , an d there i s f ederal qu est i on Case: 09-10389 Document: 00511049094 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 10389

See2 8U .S .C
. § 2 6 7 9 (d). 22 3 2 8F .3 d 2 1 2 , 2 1 4( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 3 ); see§ 2 6 7 9 (d)( 2 ). 23 See Bro wn v. Ames , 20 1 F .3d 6 54, 663 ( 5t h Cir. 20 00) (“Toavoid bei ngwaived, a n 24 ar gu m e n tm u s tb er a i s e dt os u c had e gr e eth a tth et ri a lc o u rtm ayru l eo nit . ” ) ( quo tati on mark s a n d citati ono mitt ed). 5 4 0F .3 d 3 1 5 , 3 2 7( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). 25 8 j ur i s di c t i o n he r e . “ The W e s t fal l Ac t pr o vi des t hat , upo n c e r t i f i c at i o n b y t he 22 A t t o r ne y G e ne r alo r hi s de s i gna t e d r e pr e s e nt at i ve t hatt he g o ve r nm e nt e m pl o ye e w as a c t i ng w i t hi n t he s c ope of hi s e m pl o ym e nt a t t he t i m e o f t he al l eged l y t ort i ou s act , t h e U n i t ed S t ates m ay rem ove t h e act i on t o federal court and subs t i t ut e i t se l f as t he def endant i n t he su i t. ” C o u n t s v. G u evara . The 23 A t t orney G en eral ’ s c ert i f i cat i on i n t h i s c ase i s n ot properl y bef ore us at t h i s t i m e. Jo hns o n s o ugh t r e m o va l b as e d o nl y o n § 1 44 2( a) ( 1)
. She ne ve r a s s e r t e d i n t he di st r i c t c o ur t , e i t he r i n he r r e m o v a l no t i c e o r p o s t
- r e m a nd o r d e r m o t i o ns , t hat rem oval w as w arran t ed by W est fal l A ct cer t i f i cat i on . M oreover, R ep. Joh n son

24 ap pa rentl y obtai n ed t h e A t t orney G en eral ’ s cert i f i cat i on on l y af

t er t h e di st ri ct court’ s r em an d order, an d w e gen eral l y w i l l not enl arge t h e rec o rd t o consi der
e v id e n c e th a t w a s n o t b e fo r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Mc I nt os h v. Part r i dge
. W e 25 th ere fore d ecli n e to con sider this i ssu e a n d ex p ress n o op i n i on on i t. AP P EA L DI S M I S S ED
. Case: 09-10389 Document: 00511049094 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/11/2010