FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 11, 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. 05- 16625 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -021 13 -C V -1 W E L L S F A R G O B A N K , N .A ., P l ai nt i ff -C ou nt er D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e , v ersu s W I L L I A M M . H E N L E Y , J R ., A n d A ll O th e r s , D ef endant -C ou nt er C la im a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ 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 rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 11, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:We have jurisdiction to consider only whether removal was proper under § 1443. 28 1 U . S . C . § 1 4 4 7 ( d) (b ar

rin grev i ewo f

rem an d o rd er s p ur s u antt o § 1 4 4 7 ( c ) ) ; A l a b am a v . C o n l ey, 245 F.3d 1292, 1293 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 2001) . 2 W i l l i am M . H enl ey , Jr . , proceedi ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s order r e m a n d in g th e r e m o v e d d is p o s s e s s o ry a c tio n o r ig in a lly f ile d a g a in s t h im in s ta te court . T he un derl yi ng ac t i on w as base d o n a l oan for rea l prop erty thatH enl ey o b ta in e d f

r o m W e lls F a r g o B a n k , N .A . ( “W e lls F a r g o ” ) . A f te rH e n le y f

a ile d to r e pa y the l oa n, W e l l s F a r go f or e c l os e d, pur c ha s e d the r e a l pr ope rty a tthe fore cl osure s al e, and sub se qu ent l y i ni t i at ed a di sposse ss ory procee di ng , w hi ch H e nl e y a tt e m pt e d t o r e m ove t o f e de r a l c ourtunde r28 U . S . C . §§ 1441 a nd 1443. 1 T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e m a n d e d th e a c tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 7 ( c ) , f in d in g th a t it l ack ed j u ri sd i ct i o n . H en l ey n o w ap p eal s. H enl eyar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n i m pl i ci t l y f i nd i ng thathe had f a i l e d t o s t a t e a de qua t e gr ounds f orr e m ova l pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . §1443( 1) be c aus e di s pos s e s s ory de f e nda nt s a s ac l a s s a r e de ni e d c e rt a i n c i vi l r i ght s , a nd the p l ai n m ean i n g o f th e st atu t e d o es n o treq u i re co n si d erat i o n o f raci al eq u al i ty. W e r e v ie w d e n o v o ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e c is io n to r e m a n d ar e m o v e d c a s e . Y us e f z a de h v. N e l s on, M ul l i ns , R i l e y & S c a rbor ough, L . L . P . , 365 F . 3d 1244, 1245 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . U nde r§ 1443, r e m ova l i s pr ope r“ [ a ] ga i ns ta ny pe r s on w ho i s de ni e d or3

c a nnote nf

or c e i n the c ourt s of

s uc h S t a t e ar i ghtunde ra ny l a w pr ovi di ng f orthe e qua l c i vi l r i ght s of

c i t i z e ns of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s , orof a l l pe r s ons w i th the ju r is d ic tio n th e r e o f

.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 3 ( 1 ) . R em ov al un der § 14 43 (1) m ustsa t i sf y atw o-pron g t es t . F i rs t , the pet i t i on er m ustshow thatthe “ ri gh tup on w hi ch [he] re l i es ar i se s und era f eder al l aw pr ovi di ng f

ors pe c i f i c c i vi l r i ght s s t a t e d i n t e rm s of r a c i a l e qua l i ty . ” A l aba m av. C o n le y , 2 4 5 F .3 d 1 2 9 2 , 1 2 9 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) ( c itin g G e o r g ia v . R a c h e l, 3 8 4 U .S . 7 8 0 , 7 8 8 , 8 6 S .C t. 1 7 8 3 , 1 7 8 8 , 1 6 L .E d .2 d 9 2 5 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ) . C l a i m s of

vi ol a t i ons of

r i ght s unde rc ons t i tut i ona l ors t a tut ory pr ovi s i ons of ge ne r a l appl i c abi l i ty orunde rs t a tut e s notpr ot e c t i ng a ga i ns tr a c i a l di s c r i m i na t i on w i l l nots uf

f i c e . I d. S e c ond, the pe t i t i one r“ m us ts how tha the ha s be e n de ni e d or cann otenforce thatri gh ti n the st at e c ou rt s. ” I d. L and u se ri gh t s gener al l y are re se rved for s t at e c ou rt s. S ofar el l i v. P i nel l as C ou nty, 93 1 F . 2d 71 8, 72 4 (11 th C i r. 19 91 ). H e r e , H e n le y f

a ile d to a lle g e a d e q u a te g r o u n d s f o rr e m o v a l o f

h is di s pos s e s s ory a c t i on pur s ua ntt o §1443( 1) , be c aus e hi s c l a i m w a s notba s e d on the de ni a l of c i vi l r i ght s s t a t e d i n t e rm s of r a c i a l e qua l i ty . F ur the rm or e , the r e w a s no e v id e n c e th a t H e n le y w o u ld h a v e b e e n d e n ie d o rc o u ld n o t e n f o r c e h is r ig h ts in s t a t e c ourt . S e e M y e r s v. N orth G a . T i t l e & T a x F r e e E xc ha nge , L L C , 527 S . E . 2d4

21 2, 21 4 (G a. C t . A pp . 19 99 ). A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtprop er l y r em anded the ca se , and w e A F F I R M .