FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 06 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 10590 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -008 44 -C V -C A M -1 S U B O D H C H A N D R A T . P A T E L , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M R . M C C A L L , O f

f ic e r , C o b b C o u n ty J a il, S H E R I F F B I L L H U T S O N , C o b b C o u n ty , JO H N D O E , C hai rm an, C ob b C ou nty B oard of C o m m is s io n e r s , H O N O R A B L E R .E . F L O U RN O Y , I I I , A l l ab o v e j o i n t l y an d sev eral l y i n d i v i d u al l y a n d in th e iro f

f ic ia l c ap a c itie s , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 6, 2006)2

B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S ubodhc ha ndr aT . P a t e l , apr o s e G e or gi apr i s one r , appe a l s the de ni a l by the di s tr i c tc our tof

hi s m ul t i pl e m ot i ons f

ors a nc t i oni ng f

e e s a nd c os t s f

i l e d pur s ua nt to 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 9 2 7 , 1 9 1 9 , 1 9 2 0 , 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 8 , a n d F e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P roce du re 54 . B ec ause w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew anythi ng bu tthe di stri ct c our t ’ s 22 D e c e m be r2005 or de ra nd be c a us e w e f i nd no abus e of

di s c r e t i on i n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c onc l us i on tha tthe r e c or d f a i l s t o s uppor taf

i ndi ng of ba d f a i th on th e p a r to f

th e d e f e n d a n t s ’ c o u n s e l , w e A F F I R M.

I . B AC KG RO UN D P at el fi l ed a p ro se ci v i l ri g h t s co m p l ai n ti n st at e co u rtag ai n std efen d an t sappe l l e e s , C obb C ounty J a i l O f f i c e rM c C a l l , C obb C ounty S he r i f f B i l l H ut s on, Co b b Co u n ty Bo a r d o f

Co mm i s s i o n e r s Ch a i rma n , a n d th e Ho n o r ab l e R. E. F l o u rn o y, III, seek i n g reco v ery fo r al l eg ed v i o l at i o n s o f n u m ero u s fed eral st atu t es, i ncl ud i ng 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3. T he appel l ee s r em ov ed P at el ’ s c as e t o federa l court on the gr ound tha thi s l a w s ui ta l l e ge d vi ol a t i on of r i ght s pr ot e c t e d by the C o n s titu tio n . T h e n o tic e s ta te d th a t th e ap p e lle e s h a d “g iv e n w r itte n n o tic e ” to P a te l, “f ile d aw r itte n n o tic e w ith th e C le rk o f th e S u p e r io rC o u r t o f

C o b b C o u n ty ,”3

a nd ha d “ c ont a c t e d c ouns e l f orthe S t a t e de f

e nda nt[ the H onor abl e R . E . F l ournoy I I I ], a n d th e S ta te d o e s n o t o b je c t to th e r e m o v a l.” R 1 - 1 a t 2 . P at el “ obj ec t [e d] , ” a rgui ng , i nt eral i a, that : (1) the no t i ce of re m ov al c ont a i ne d untruthf

ul s t a t e m e nt s ; ( 2) the r e w a s no doc um e nt e d c onf i rm a t i on of

the st at e’ s co n sen tt o rem o v al ; an d (3 ) th e d efen d an t s w ere u si n g th e rem o v al p ro cess t o ha r a s s hi m a nd f

rus tr a t e the l i t i ga t i on of hi s c a s e . R 1- 6 a t2. 6. 10- 11. T he appe l l e e s r e s ponde d tha tP a t e l ha d di r e c t l y r e f e rr e d t o 42 U . S . C . § 1983, a l ong w ith o th e rf

e d e r a l s ta tu te s , in h is c o m p la in t a n d th a t h e h a d s e t f o r th n o le g a l b a s is prec l ud i ng re m ov al . P at el then fi l ed a m ot i on for r em and, i n w hi ch he argued that h is c a s e d id n o t c o n ta in af e d e r a l q u e s tio n b e c a u s e th e f e d e r a l s ta tu te s c ite d m e r e ly f ille d g ap s le f

t b y th e s ta te s ta tu te s . W h ile th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s id e r e d th is m o tio n , P a te l p r o c e e d e d to f ile am o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T h e d e f e n d a n ts r e s ponde d w i th di s c ove ry r e que s t s , t o w hi c h P a t e l r e s ponde d w i th num e r ous f u r th e rm o tio n s . I n a n o r d e ra d d r e s s in g s e v e r a l m o tio n s f ile d b y th e p a r tie s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, i nt eral i a, deni ed P at el ’ s m ot i on t o rem and h i s c as e bec ause P at el ’ s c om pl ai nthad a l l e ge d both f

e de r a l a nd s t a t e c a us e s of a c t i on, a nd P a t e l ha d f

a i l e d t o pr e s e nta ny a de qua t e r e a s ons f

orr e m a nd. P a t e l f

i l e d am ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on i n w hi c h he ar gu ed, i n p art , thatdefe nd ant s had vi ol at ed the rul e of unani m ou s c on se ntas se t4

f o r th b y 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 6 b e c a u s e n o a f f id a v it h a d b e e n f

ile d o n b e h a lf

o f th e s ta te defe nd ant , F l ou rnoy, confi rm i ng hi s e xp re ss consentt o the re m ov al . T he di stri ct c our tr e m a nde d the c a s e pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1447, on the gr ound tha tthe

“ st at em en ti n th e [d efen d an t s’ ] rem o v al n o t i ce [as t o th e st at e’ s co n sen tw as] in s u f f ic ie n t to s a tis f

y th e u n a n im ity ru le e v e n if it [ w e r e ] c o n s tru e d a s ac o n s e n t” and thatthe “ defe nd ant s’ l at eras sura nce of the S t at e’ s i nt entt o con se nt[w er e] u n tim e lya n d in s u f

f ic ie n t.” R 2 - 5 8 a t 3 . P a t e l the n f

i l e d a n e m e r ge nc y m ot i on f ors a nc t i ons on 12 D e c e m be r2005, pu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 92 7, w hi ch al l ow s f or cost s, expenses , and att orneys ’ fe es for c on du ctthatun re as on abl y a nd vexat i ou sl y “ m ul t i pl i es the proceedi ng s. ” I n ar gu i ng thatdefe nd ant s had m al i ci ou sl y r em ov ed hi s pro se ci vi l ac t i on , P at el a l l e ge d tha tthe y ha d: ( 1) “ i ns t i tut e d ac ha i n of pr oc e e di ngs be f

or e the i s s ue of i l l egal re m ov al [c ou l d] be re sol ved”; (2) m i sl ed the di stri ctcourton 6 O ct ob er 2005 t o obt a i n arul i ng i n the i rf a vor ; a nd ( 3) f

orove re i ghtm onths “ m a i nt a i ne d a s tu b b o rn , u n ap o lo g e tic , a n d v in d ic tiv e a ttitu d e . . . in th e ira tte m p ts to p e rp e tr a te i nj us t i c e on [ P a t e l ] by l e ga l m a ni pul a t i ons . ” R 2- 66 a t2. P a t e l a s s e r t e d tha tthe de f e nda nt s ’ a c t i ons c a us e d hi m t o i nc urm one t a ry da m a ge s i n the a m ountof $ 7 ,5 9 3 .1 0 , w h ic h in c lu d e d c o s ts , e x p e n s e s , a n d a tto rn e y tim e . I d . T h e d e f e n d a n ts r e s ponde d tha tP a t e l w a s unabl e t o pr ove e i the rl e ga l l y orf a c tua l l y tha tr e m ova l of5

th e c iv il c a s e w a s im p r o p e r . T h e y a s s e r te d th a t th e y h a d p o s s e s s e d ag o o d - f a ith bel i ef thatthe show i ng of the st at e’ s c on se nti n thei r not i ce of re m ov al w as s u f f ic ie n t to s a tis f

y th e ru le o n u n a n im ity . O n 2 2 D ec em b er2 0 0 5 , th e d istrict co u rt issu ed an o rd erd en yin g P atel’s m ot i on f ors a nc t i ons on the gr ounds tha tthe f a c t s di d nots how m a l i c i ous ne s s on th e p a r t o f

th e d e f e n d a n ts a n d th a t th e “r e m a n d o f [ th e ] c a s e r e s u lte d d u e to d efen d an t s’ fai l u re t o t i m el y o b t ai n ex p ress co n sen tfro m o n e o f th e d efen d an t s, [ a nd tha t ] s uc h [ a ] pr oc e dur a l de f e c ti n ar e m ova l [ di d] notw a rr a nta n a w a r d of m one t a ry da m a ge s . ” R 2- 73 a t1- 2. O n 3 J a nua ry 2006, P a t e l f i l e d am ot i on f

or r e c ons i de r a t i on of

the c our t ’ s 22 D e c e m be r2005 or de r , r e s t a t i ng hi s pr e vi ous ar gu m ent s a nd cont endi ng that : (1) the courtused on e s t andard for l i ce nsed att orneys and ano ther f

or pro se l i t i gant s; (2) the defendant s knew thatthey w er e i m prop er l y r em ov i ng the ca se t o federa l court ; and (3) the court ’ s rul i ng s had fav o red th e d efen d an t s. R 2 -7 5 at1 -2 . M o re sp eci fi cal l y, h e ad d ed th atd efen d an t s’ co u n sel h ad act ed i n b ad fai th b y: (1 ) p resen t i n g sp ecu l at i v e an d g ro u n d l ess pr e s um pt i ons of

f a c ta nd l a w t o ha ve hi s c a s e r e m ove d t o f e de r a l c our t , ( 2) hara ss i ng hi m by choo si ng an i ncon veni entforum , and (3) com pel l i ng di sc ov ery “to o b s c u r e th e is s u e o f r e m a n d a n d s id e tr a c k ” th e c o u r t f r o m th e is s u e o f

r e m o v a l. R 2 -7 6 at8 . P at el su p p l em en t ed th e m o t i o n a seco n d t i m e t o assertth ath e w as al so6

e n title d to a ll c o s ts p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 9 1 9 , 1 9 2 0 a n d F e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r oc e dur e 54. O n 1 7 Ja n u ar y 2 0 0 6 , P atel filed a s ec o n d em er g en cy m o ti o n fo r a tt o rn ey ’s f e e s , e xpe ns e s , a nd c os t s pur s ua ntt o 42 U . S . C . § 1988, 28 U . S . C . §§ 1919, 1920, a nd R ul e 54, ba s e d a ga i n on the de f e nda nt s ’ r e m ova l of

hi s c a s e . I n thi s m ot i on, he ra i se d the am ou ntof hi s c l ai m t o $ 8, 84 3. 10 . R 2-78 at11 . T hen, on 18 Ja nu ary 2006, be f

or e the c our tha d rul e d on e i the rthe m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rthe de ni a l of sa nct i on s or the se cond em er gency m ot i on , P at el fi l ed a t i m el y not i ce of appeal f r om the 22 D e c e m be r2005 or de r . T he not i c e s pe c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d tha t : ( 1) the ap p e a l w a s m a d e u n d e rth e ju r is d ic tio n o f th e “U .S . C o u r t o f

A p p e a ls f

o rE le v e n th C i r c ui t ; ” a nd ( 2) the or de rappe a l e d w a s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s 22 D e c e m be r2005 or de r , de ny i ng hi s e m e r ge nc y m ot i on f ors a nc t i ons unde r28 U . S . C . § 1927. R 2- 79 a t 1 . P a te l a ls o s ta te d th a t: P la in tif f f u r th e rin f

o rm s a n d r e q u e s ts to C le rk o f U .S . D is tr ic t C o u r t to pres entP l ai nt i ff’ s M ot i on for R ec on si dera t i on and i t s s up pl em ent al mo t i o n s , a n d mo t i o n s u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 9 1 9 , 1 9 2 0 , Fe d . R. Ci v . P. R u le 5 4 ( c ) ( d ) , 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 8 , a n d O .C .G .A . 9 - 1 5 - 1 e t s e q . tim e ly fi l ed an d p en d i n g fo r ru l i n g so th atth e en t i re i ssu e o f p aral eg al ’ s fees, e xpe ns e s a nd c os t s c a n be de t e rm i ne d by U . S . C our tof A ppe a l s i f

a ny o ra ll o f th o s e m o tio n s a r e d e n ie d b y U .S . D is tr ic t C o u r t. I d .7

O n 1 F eb ru ar y 2 0 0 6 , th e d istrict co u rt issu ed an o rd erd en yin g P atel’s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on a nd the s e c ond e m e r ge nc y m ot i on. A s t o the m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on, the c our tf ound a ga i n tha tr e m a nd of the c a s e r e s ul t e d f

r om the de f e nda nt s ’ f

a i l ur e t i m e l y t o obt a i n e xpr e s s c ons e ntf r om one of

the de f e nda nt s a nd thatsuch a procedural defe ctdi d n oti nd i ca t e thatthe defendant s had ac t ed i n b ad fa i th w arra nt i ng sa nct i on s und er§ 1 92 7. In denyi ng P at el ’ s s ec on d em er gency m o tio n f o ra tto rn e y ’s f

e e s , th e c o u r t f

o u n d th a t: ( 1 ) § 1 9 1 9 w a s in ap p lic ab le because i tautho ri ze d the courtt o o rderpaym entof cost s w hen an act i on w as di s m i s s e d f

orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on w he r e a s P a t e l ’ s c a s e w a s r e m a nde d due t o a p r o c e d u r a l d e f

e c t; a n d ( 2 ) § 1 9 8 8 , R u le 5 4 , a n d § 1 9 2 0 d id n o t e n title P a te l to r e c e i ve a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s a nd c os t s be c a us e P a t e l ha d y e tt o pr e va i l on the m e r i t s of hi s c l ai m as re qu i re d b y § 19 88 and R ul e 54 and because the cost s he r equest ed w er e notcovered by § 19 20 . P at el di d n otfi l e ano t i ce of appeal fr om thi s order . O n 7 F e brua ry 2006, how e ve r , P a t e l f i l e d am ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s 1 F e brua ry 2006 or de ra nd r e pe a t e d hi s pr e vi ous a r gum e nt s . O n the s a m e da y , P a t e l f

i l e d adoc um e nts ty l e d: “ P l a i nt i f f’ s E m e r ge nc y M ot i on f or C e r tif ie d Q u e s tio n s to U .S . C o u r t o f A p p e a ls ( 1 1 th C ir .) I f

H o n . C o u r t D e c lin e s to P ro v i d e R u l i n g s o n K ey P ro ced u ral Issu es R em ai n ed U n att en d ed i n T h i s C ase W hi ch M ayP re

j ud i ce t o L egal Int er es t s of P l ai nt i ff i n S t at e C ou rt . ” R 2-86 at1. In8

thi s doc um e nt , P a t e l r e que s t e d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ti s s ue arul i ng a s t o the t i m el i ness of the defendant s’ no t i ce of re m ov al . Id. at10 . P at el al so re qu es t ed that

“ i n [ the ] abs e nc e of

a ny rul i ng [ by the di s tr i c tc our t ] on the i s s ue s pr e s e nt e d, pl e a s e , [ f ors om e one t o] f

orw a r d que s t i ons t o be c e r t i f i e d by the U . S . C our tof A ppe a l s ( 11th C i r . ) . ” I d. T he s e que s t i ons i nc l ude d: ( 1) w he n a n a dva nc e pa y m e nt of f i l i ng f e e s m us tbe m a de a nd ( 2) w ha t“ s pe c i a l rul e s , ge ne r a l rul e s ors t a tut e s of th e U n it ed S tates C o u rts” allo w a “cler k o f c o u rt” o r “a c o u rt [to ] b y- p as s it[]s L ocal R ul es t o ‘ fa vo r’ a l i t i gantov erthe other party/ i es . ” I d. at11 . T he di stri ct c our tc ha r a c t e r i z e d thi s doc um e nta s a n “ A m e nde d N ot i c e of A ppe a l ” f

r om the 22 D e c e m be r2005 or de r . S e e R 1, D i s tr i c tC our tD oc ke tS he e t , E ntry N o. 86. O n 9 F eb ru ar y 2 0 0 6 , th e d istrict co u rt issu ed an o rd erd en yin g P atel’s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

i t s 1 F e brua ry 2006 or de r . T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound no m a ni f e s te rr orof

l a w orf a c ti n i t s pr e vi ous tw o or de r s de ny i ng P a t e l ’ s m ot i ons f o ra tto rn e y ’s f

e e s a n d c o s ts . P a te l f

ile d n o f u r th e rn o tic e o f

ap p e a l. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . S c ope of

A ppe l l a t e J ur i s di c t i on I n hi s br i e f

, P a t e l s t a t e s tha the i s appe a l i ng f r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s 22 D ecem b er 2 0 0 5 , 1 F eb ru ary 2 0 0 6 , an d 9 F eb ru ary 2 0 0 6 o rd ers. W e m u st

“ i nde pe nde nt l y e xa m i ne ourappe l l a t e j ur i s di c t i on a nd di s m i s s w he n our9

ju r is d ic tio n a l lim its a r e e x c e e d e d .” R u s s e ll C o rp . v . A m . H o m e A s s u r a n c e C o ., 26 4 F . 3d 10 40 , 10 43 (11th C i r. 20 01 ).

“ In a c i vi l ca se . . . [a ] no t i ce of appeal . . . m ustbe fi l ed w i th the di stri ct c l e rk w i th i n 3 0 d a y s a f

t e rth e j u d g me n to ro r d e rap p e a l e d f r o m i s e n t e r e d . ” Fe d . R. A pp . P . 4(a) (1)( A ). B oth a m ot i on t o al t eror am end a j ud gm entun der F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 59 and a m ot i on for r el i ef fr om j ud gm entun der F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P r oc e dur e 60 t ol l the t i m e t o f i l e a n appe a l f

ora l l pa r t i e s “ f

r om the e n try o f th e o r d e rd i s p o s i n g o f

th e l a s ts u c h r e ma i n i n g mo t i o n . ” Fe d . R. A p p . P. 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( A ) ( iv ) , ( v i) . A d d itio n a lly , an o tic e o f ap p e a l m u s t: ( A ) s pe c i f

y the pa r ty orpa r t i e s t a ki ng the appe a l by na m i ng e a c h one in th e c ap tio n o rb o d y o f th e n o tic e . . . ; ( B ) de s i gna t e the j udgm e nt , or de r , orpa r tthe r e of be i ng appe a l e d; a nd ( C ) na m e the c our tt o w hi c h the appe a l i s t a ke n. F e d. R . A pp. P . 3( c ) ( 1) . “ T he t e s tf orde t e rm i ni ng the s uf

f i c i e nc y of

anot i c e of appe a l i s ‘ w he the ri ti s obj e c t i ve l y c l e a rtha tapa r ty i nt e nde d t o appe a l . ’ ” B ogl e v. O r a nge C ounty B d. of

C ounty C om m ’ r s , 162 F . 3d 653, 660 ( 11th C i r . 1998) (quo t i ng F ed. R . A pp . P . 3(c) advi sorycom m i tt ee ’ s not e ( 19 93 am endm ent )) . T he di stri ctcourt ’ s 22 D ec em ber 200 5 o rderdenyi ng P at el ’ s 12 D ec em ber 2 0 0 5 e m e r g e n c y m o tio n f o rs a n c tio n s f

ile d p u r s u a n t to § 1 9 2 7 is p r o p e r ly w ith in the s c ope of

the appe a l . T he not i c e of appe a l a s t o tha tor de rw a s t i m e l y f i l e d on 18 J a nua ry 2006 a nd s pe c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d tha t : ( 1) the or de rbe i ng appe a l e d w a s the10

22 D e c e m be r2005 or de rde ny i ng P a t e l ’ s e m e r ge nc y m ot i on unde r§ 1927; a nd ( 2) the appeal w as bei ng t aken un der the j uri sdi ct i on of thi s c ou rt . H ow ever , P at el n ev er fi l ed an ad d i t i o n al o r am en d ed n o t i ce o f ap p eal as t o th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s 1 F eb ru ary 2 0 0 6 o r 9 F eb ru ary 2 0 0 6 o rd ers. T h u s, an i ssu e ari ses as t o w h eth er th ese tw o o r d e r s a r e w ith in th e s c o p e o f th is ap p e a l. G e ne r a l l y , w e ha ve he l d tha tw he n al i t i ga nt“ f a i l [ s ] t o f i l e a n a ddi t i ona l or a m e nde d not i c e of

appe a l r e f

e rr i ng t o [ a ] s ubs e que ntor de r , [ w e a r e ] w i thout j uri sdi ct i on t o h ea r the appeal on the m er i t s. ” I d. W e have al so ob se rved that

“ R ul e 3(c ) r equi re s thata not i ce of appeal desi gn at e a n exi st entj ud gm entor order, n o t o n e th at is m er ely e x p ec ted o r th at is, o r s h o u ldb e, w ith in th e a p p ellan t’ s co n tem p lati o n w h en th e n o ti ce o f a p p ea l i s f il ed .” Id . at 6 6 1 . W e e x p lain ed th at “a l i t i gantw ho fi l e[ s] a not i ce of appeal pri or t o the entryof the re l evantorder w i thoutr e f

e rr i ng t o tha tor de rha [ s ] f a i l e d t o s a t i s f

y F R A P 3. ” I d. a t660 ( c i t i ng M c D o u g a ld v . J e n s o n , 7 8 6 F .2 d 1 4 6 5 , 1 4 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) ) . H ow e ve r , a n appe l l a t e br i e f m a y be c ons true d a s anot i c e of appe a l s o l ong a s th e ap p e lla te b r ie f

w a s f ile d w ith in th e tim e lim its g o v e rn in g n o tic e s o f ap p e a l. S m i th v. B a rry , 502 U . S . 244, 248- 49, 112 S . C t . 678, 682 ( 1992) ( e xa m i ni ng w he the rapr o s e appe l l a nt ’ s br i e f c oul d c ons t i tut e anot i c e of appe a l ) . T he S up re m e C ou rtexpl ai ned that , even tho ug h the re qu i re m ent s of R ul e 3 ar e11

j u r i s d i c t i o n a l , th e y a r e a l s o l i b e r a l l y c o n s tru e d . I d . a t2 4 8 , 1 1 2 S. Ct . a t6 8 2 . To d e t e rm i n e wh e th e rad o c u m e n ts h o u l d b e c o n s tru e d a s an o t i c e o f ap p e a l , we fol l ow a tw o-partt es t . R i nal do v. C orbett , 25 6 F . 3d 12 76 , 12 78 -79 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ci t i ng B arry , 50 2 U . S . at24 8, 11 2 S . C t . at68 1-82 ). F i rs t , w e a sk w hether the doc um e ntf

ul f i l l s the thr e e - pa r tr e qui r e m e ntof R ul e 3( c ) ( 1) a nd i s the r e f or e the “f u n c tio n a l e q u iv a le n t” o f an o tic e o f

ap p e a l. I d . S e c o n d , w e a s k “w h e th e rit is obj e c t i ve l y c l e a r[ f

r om the doc um e nt ] tha tapa r ty i nt e nde d t o appe a l ” s uc h tha tthe othe rpa r t i e s a nd the c our t s a r e pr ovi de d w i th s uf f i c i e ntnot i c e . I d. a t1279 (quo t at i on s om i tt ed). “ If a docum entfi l ed w i thi n the t i m e s peci fi ed by R ul e 4 g i v es th e n o t i ce req u i red b y R u l e 3 , i ti s effecti v e as a n o t i ce o f ap p eal . ” B arry, 5 0 2 U . S . at2 4 8 -4 9 , 1 1 2 S . C t . at6 8 2 . F i n al l y, “ [p ] ro se p l ead i n g s are h el d t o a l ess s tr i nge nts t a nda r d tha n pl e a di ngs dr a f t e d by a tt orne y s a nd w i l l , the r e f or e , be lib e r a lly c o n s tru e d .” T a n n e n b a u m v . U n ite d S ta te s , 1 4 8 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( p e rc u r i a m ) . De s p i t e th i s l e n i e n c y “ a f f o r d e d p r o s e l i t i g a n t s , we neverthel es s have r equi re d them t o con form t o p roce du ra l rul es . ” L oren v. S as se r, 30 9 F . 3d 12 96 , 13 04 (11th C i r. 20 02 ) ( per c uri am ). A s not e d e a r l i e r , P a t e l ne ve rf i l e d e i the ra n a ddi t i ona l ora m e nde d not i c e of appeal as t o ei ther the 1 o r 9 F ebruary20 06 orders . In hi s 18 January20 06 no t i ce o f ap p e a l, P a te l s ta te d th a t:12

P la in tif f f u r th e rin f

o rm s a n d r e q u e s ts to C le rk o f U .S . D is tr ic t C o u r t to pres entP l ai nt i ff’ s M ot i on for R ec on si dera t i on and i t s s up pl em ent al mo t i o n s , a n d mo t i o n s u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 9 1 9 , 1 9 2 0 , Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 54 (c )( d), 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 8, and O . C . G . A . 9-15 -1 etse q. t i m el y f i l ed an d p en d i n g fo r ru l i n g so th atth e en t i re i ssu e o f p aral eg al ’ s fees, e xpe ns e s a nd c os t s c a n be de t e rm i ne d by U . S . C our tof A ppe a l s i f

a ny o ra ll o f th o s e m o tio n s a r e d e n ie d b y U .S . C o u r t. R 2 - 7 9 a t 1 . T h is in s tru c tio n , h o w e v e r , ru n s c o u n te rto o u rin te rp r e ta tio n o f R u le 3(c) re qu i ri ng thatthe no t i ce desi gn at e a n exi st entorder. S ee B og l e, 16 2 F . 3d at 66 1. A dd i t i on al l y, al tho ug h P at el ’ s “ E m er gency M ot i on F or C ert i fi ed Q ue s t i ons , ” f

i l e d on 8 F e brua ry 2006, w a s c ons true d by the di s tr i c tc our ta nd l abe l e d on the doc ke ts he e ta s a n “ A m e nde d N ot i c e of A ppe a l ” f

r om the 22 D e c e m be r2005 or de r , i tf a i l s t o r e f

e r e nc e a ny s ubs e que ntdi s tr i c tc our tor de ra nd onl y pr e s e nt s que s t i ons f orthe di s tr i c tc our ta nd us t o a ns w e r . T hus , i tdoe s not m eetth e R u l e 3 (c) req u i rem en t s. A d d i t i o n al l y, P at el ’ s ap p el l at e b ri ef m ay n o tb e l i b eral l y co n stru ed as a not i c e of appe a l of

the 1 a nd 9 F e brua ry 2006 or de r s pur s ua ntt o B a rry a nd R in a ld o . E v e n th o u g h P a te l’s b r ie f m e e ts th e th r e e - p a r t r e q u ir e m e n ts o f R u le 3 ( c ) ( 1 ) , it w a s n o t f

ile d w ith in th e 3 0 - d a y n o tic e o f ap p e a l tim e p e r io d . E v e n if P at el ’ s 7 F eb ru ary 2 0 0 6 m o t i o n fo r reco n si d erat i o n as t o th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s 1 F e brua ry 2006 or de rw e r e c ons true d a s aR ul e 59( e ) m ot i on t ol l i ng tha tpe r i od, the o r d e rd e n y in g th a t m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n w a s e n te r e d o n 9 F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 6 .Patel also argues that the def endants lied a

bout their failureto make the advancepay ment 1 of $250 when filing the ir notice of removal and that the district court did not have jurisdiction over hiscase becau se theno tic eof remov al w a s p ro c e durally and str uc turally de fe c tiv e . The seissue s, however, were rendered moot by the district court’s remand of the ca se.

“ An order re manding a c a seto t heStatec ourt

from which it

wa s re mov e d isno t re viewa ble 2 on appeal or otherwise , except that an order remandinga ca se to the S tate cour t from which it was remove d pursuant to sec tion 1443 of this ti tle shall be reviewableby appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). This casewas removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. R1-1 at 2. 13 P a te l d id n o t f

ile h is ap p e lla te b r ie f

u n til 2 2 M a r c h 2 0 0 6 , w e ll o v e r3 0 d a y s la te r . T hus , w e m a y notc ons true P a t e l ’ s appe l l a t e br i e f a s the “ f unc t i ona l e qui va l e nt ” of anot i c e of

appe a l . A c c or di ngl y , the onl y or de rtha tf a l l s w i thi n the s c ope of

our re vi ew i s the 22 D ec em ber 200 6 o rder . 1 B . S ubj e c tM a tt e rJ ur i s di c t i on W e a l so i nq ui re sua s po nt e i nt o subj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on “ w henever i tm ay be l ac ki ng . ” C adetv. B ul ger, 37 7 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 79 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). W e l ac k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w m os tr e m a nd or de r s , i nc l udi ng the one a ti s s ue he r e . 28 2 U . S . C . § 1 44 7(d). H ow ever , al tho ug h w e have y etspec i fi ca l l y t o add re ss w hether w e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w ar e m a nd or de ri n c ons i de r i ng am ot i on f or sa nct i on s pursuantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 92 7, w e have s peci fi ca l l y hel d that“ [w ] e m ay re vi ew the m er i t s of are m and o rderi n con si deri ng w hether the di stri ctcourt ab u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n b y a w a r d i n g a tt o rn e y s ’ f e e s a n d c o s t s u n d e r2 8 U . S. C.28 U. S.C. § 1 44 7( c ) s tate s th at: 3 A motion to remand the c ase on thebasis of any defe ct o th er than lac k of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the fil i n g o f the noticeof removal under sec tion 1446(a). I f at a ny time beforefinal judgment it a ppear s that the dis tric t c o urt l a c k s s u b je c t m atter

ju ris dic ti o n , th ec a s es h allb ere ma n d e d . An order remanding the c a se may re quirepa y ment o f j us t c os ts a

nd any a c tual e xpens e s, including attorney

fee s, incurre d as a result of the removal. A certified copy of the order o f re mand

sh all b emaile d b y

thec lerk to t he c lerk of the Statec ourt . TheState court may thereupon proce ed with such c ase. 14 § 1 44 7(c) . ” L egg v . W ye th, 42 8 F . 3d 13 17 , 13 19 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). W e e xp l ai ned

3 th a t: W h ile 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 7 ( d ) b a r s o u rr e v ie w o f ar e m a n d s u c h a s th is one ba s e d on l a c k of

s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on, the s t a tut e doe s not e x c lu d e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s a s s e s s m e n t o f c o s ts f r o m ap p e lla te r e v ie w . A s the F i fth C i rc ui thas e xp l ai ned [i n H ornb uckl e v. S t at e F arm L l oyds, 38 5 F . 3d 53 8, 54 1 (5th C i r. 20 04 )] , w hi l e w e m ayno tre vi ew the de c i s i on t o r e m a nd i t s e l f , w e m us t , a s pa r tof

oure xa m i na t i on of the a w a r d of

f e e s , c ons i de rthe obj e c t i ve va l i di ty of the r e m ovi ng party’ s e ff

ort s, atthe t i m e thatparty a tt em pt ed t o rem ov e the ca se . I d. a t1319- 20 ( c i t a t i ons a nd quot e s om i tt e d) . E ve n though P a t e l s e e ks f e e s a nd cost s a s s anct i on s pursuantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 92 7, as op po se d t o cost s a nd expenses pu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 44 7(c) , w e have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew P at el ’ s app ea l s in c e o u rr e v ie w o f

th e f e e s a n d c o s ts r e q u e s te d b y P a te l u n d e r§ 1 9 2 7 w o u ld r e qui r e us t o “ c ons i de rthe obj e c t i ve va l i di ty of the r e m ovi ng pa r ty ’ s e f f or t s , a tthe t i m e thatparty a tt em pt ed t o rem ov e the ca se , ” a nd w e have s peci fi ca l l y hel d that w e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w s u c h m a tte r s . S e e W y e th , 4 2 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 9 - 2 0 . C . M ot i ons f

orF e e s , C os t s , a nd E xpe ns e s a s S a nc t i ons unde r28 U . S . C . § 192715

P a te l a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h im f e e s a n d e x p e n s e s in lig h t o f th e f a c t th a t h e p r o v id e d th e c o u r t w ith d e ta ile d r e a s o n s f o rh is e lig ib ility f orc om pe ns a t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1927. W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on r e ga r di ng the i m pos i t i on of s a nc t i ons unde r28 U . S . C . § 1927 f ora n abus e of di sc re t i on . S ee S chw art z v. M i l l on A i r, Inc. , 34 1 F . 3d 12 20 , 12 25 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). S ec t i on 19 27 addres se s c ou nsel ’ s l i abi l i ty f or exces si ve cost s a nd st at es th a t: A ny a tt orne y orothe rpe r s on a dm i tt e d t o c onduc tc a s e s i n a ny c our tof the U ni t e d S t a t e s ora ny T e rr i t ory the r e of w ho s o m ul t i pl i e s the pr oc e e di ngs i n a ny c a s e unr e a s onabl y a nd ve xa t i ous l y m a y be req u i red b y th e co u rtt o sat i sfy p erso n al l y th e ex cess co st s, ex p en ses, a n d a tto rn e y s ’ f

e e s r e a s o n ab ly in c u rr e d b e c a u s e o f s u c h c o n d u c t. 28 U . S . C . § 1927. “ F ors a nc t i ons unde rs e c t i on 1927 t o be appr opr i a t e , s om e thi ng m or e tha n al a c k of

m e r i ti s r e qui r e d. T he s t a tut e w a s de s i gne d t o s a nc t i on att orneys w ho w i l l ful l y abu se the j ud i ci al proces s by c on du ctt ant am ou ntt o b ad fa i th, ” butno tby cond uctconst i tut i ng “ m er e negl i gence. ” S chw art z, 34 1 F . 3d at 12 25 (quo t at i on s a nd ci t at i on s om i tt ed). B ad fa i th exi st s “ w here an att orney kn ow i ng l y or r ec kl es sl y pursues a f ri vo l ou s c l ai m or engages i n l i t i gat i on t ac t i cs tha tne e dl e s s l y obs truc tthe l i t i ga t i on of non- f r i vol ous c l a i m s . ” I d. T he r e c or d i n thi s c a s e f a i l s t o s uppor taf

i ndi ng of ba d f a i th on the pa r tof the de f e nda nt s ’ c ouns e l . P a t e l f a i l e d t o s ubm i ta ny e vi de nc e of c onduc tbe y ond16

m e r e n e g lig e n c e . T h e d e f e n d a n ts c la im e d th a t th e y th o u g h t th e y h a d p r o p e r ly exec ut ed re m ov al by ob t ai ni ng consentfr om al l of the defendant s. T he di stri ct c our tr e m a nde d the c a s e onl y be c a us e of the de f e nda nt s ’ f

a i l ur e t i m e l y t o ha ve one o f its d e f e n d a n ts e x p r e s s ly c o n s e n t to r e m o v a l. A d d itio n a lly , P a te l, n o t th e d e f e n d a n ts , m u ltip lie d th e p r o c e e d in g s . W h ile the i s s ue of

r e m ova l w a s be f

or e the c our t , i tw a s P a t e l w ho f i l e d am ot i on f

or s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t p r io rto a n y d is c o v e ry b e in g c o n d u c te d . T h e d e f e n d a n ts resp o n d ed t o P at el ’ s m o t i o n w i th d i sco v ery req u est s an d P at el resp o n d ed t o th o se b y f ilin g s e v e r a l a d d itio n a l m o tio n s . A c c o r d in g ly , w e s e e n o ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n in the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c onc l us i on tha tP a t e l f a i l e d t o s how j us t i f

i c a t i on f ors a nc t i ons pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1927. I I I . CONCL US I ON P a te l ap p e a ls th e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n s f

o rf e e s a n d c o s ts in c u rr e d in c o n n e c t i o n wi th th e r e m o v a l a n d r e m a n d o f h i s c i v i l r i g h t s c o m p l a i n t . B e c a u s e we l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w a ny thi ng butthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s 22 D e c e m be r2005 or de ra nd be c a us e w e f

i nd no abus e of

di s c r e t i on i n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c onc l us i on th atth e reco rd fai l s t o su p p o rta fi n d i n g o f b ad fai th o n th e p arto f th e d efen d an t s’ co u n sel , th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s o rd er i s AF F I RME D.