UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ DEBORAH SANT ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO; NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL; COUNTY OF RIO ARRIBA; COUNTY OF SANTA FE COUNTY ATTORNEY; COUNTY OF SAN MI GUEL; CITY OF LAS VEGAS ATTORNEY; COUNTY OF BERNALILLO COUN TY ATTORNEY; CITY OF ALBUQU ERQUE ATTORNEY; COUNTY OF LOS ALAMOS COUNTY ATTORNEY, Defendants - Appellees. No. 20-2036 (D.C. No. 1:20-CV-00139-JCH-CG) (D. N.M.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , BALDOCK , and CARSON , Circuit Judges. **

________________ _________________ Pro se Plaintiff Deborah Sant Robinson removed a number of state court cases to the United States District Court for the District of Ne w Mexico. The district court

* This order and judgment is not bi nding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judica ta, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consiste nt with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### September 1, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 judge remanded the proceedings to state c ourt because Robinson did not allege a federal question in her initia l pleadings. The district court also set forth filing restrictions because of what it characterized as Robinson’s frivolous, unintelligible filings. Robinson appeals the district court’s remand order. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), we ordinarily lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal fro m a district court’s remand order. We do, however, have limit ed jurisdiction to review remand orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1442 and 1443. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (“An order remanding a case to the State court from it was re moved is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding a ca se to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 14 43 . . . shall be reviewable.”). Robinson fails to show that her clai ms arise under either § 1442 or § 1443. Instead, she presents vague and conclusory arguments re garding, among other things due process, fraud on the c ourt, false imprisonment and re ligious rights. Because her claims do not fit within any exception set forth in Section 1447(d), we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 1 We also deny as moot R obinson’s motion for leave

1 We cannot determine based on her br iefing whether Robinson intended to appeal the filing restrictions, but she failed to challenge th em in her briefing. So we do not address the propriety of the district court’s imposition of fili ng restrictions. At this time, we do not impose f iling restrictions on Robinson in this Court. However, Robinson is admonished that if she continues to file frivol ous appeals in this Court, we may consider imposing re strictions as well.3 to proceed in forma pauperis.

Entered for the Court

Joel M. Carson III Circuit Judge