[DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 16 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cv -2 37 20 -J AL MATTIE LOMAX, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us THE STAT E OF FLORIDA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-15167 Date Filed: 07/17/2012 Page: 1 of 3Mat ti e Lom ax , pro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f

he r no ti ce o f rem ov al of h er cr im in al cas e an d h er at te m ptto in it ia te a § 1 98 3 cl ai m . Lom ax ass ert s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredinfin di ng th athe r cl ai m , whi ch sh e co nt en ds to ha ve fil edinFlo rid a st at e co urt, was fri vo lo us an d i nt en de d t o ha ras s the arre st in g o ffi cers ass oc iate d wi tha st at e b at te ry pro ceed in g a ga in sthe r. Inhe r no ti ce o f rem ov al , Lom ax co nt en de d t ha t 2 8 U.S.C. § 14 43 (1 ) ga ve he r gr ou nd s fo r rem ov al to fed eral co urt. Sec ti on 14 43 (1 ) al lo ws fo r rem ov al of

“ cri m in al pro se cu ti on s, co m m en cedina St at e co urt . . . [a]gai ns t an y pe rs on who is de ni edor c an no t en fo rce i n the co urts of s uc h S ta te a ri gh t u nd er an y law pr ov id in g fo r th e equa l ci vi l ri gh ts of c it iz en s o f th e Uni te d S ta te s, o r of all pe rs on s wi th in th e juri sd ic ti on th ereo f[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1 44 3( 1) . To qu al ify un de r § 1 44 3( 1) , Lom ax “ m

us t s ho w bo th th atth e ri gh t upo n wh ic h [s he ] rel [ie s] is a rig htun de r an y

law p ro vi di ng forequa l ci vi l ri gh ts , andth at[sh e is ] de ni edor can no t en fo rce t ha t ri gh t i n the co urts of” Flo rid a. Geor gi a v . Rach el , 38 4 U.S. 78 0, 7 88 , 86 S. Ct. 1 78 3, 1 78 8 (1 96 6) (al te rat io n a ndqu ot at io ns om it te d) . It i s cl ear t ha t Lo m ax ’s no ti ce o f rem ov al fai le d t o e xp la in ho w sh e m eet s thi s st an da rd , esp eci al ly the requi rem en t tha t s he be de ni edor u nabl e to en fo rce h er rig ht s i n s ta te co urt. Acco rd in gl y , th ere was no ba si s fo r Lom ax to rem ov e h er cri m in al cas e to fed eral co urt. Inan y act io n re m ov edfro m

st at e co urt, “ [i]f atan y 2 Case: 11-15167 Date Filed: 07/17/2012 Page: 2 of 3ti m e b efo re fi na l ju dg m en t i t ap pe ars th atth e d is tri ctco urt l ack s s ub ject m atte r juri sd ic ti on , th e cas e sh al l b e rem an de d.” 28 U.S.C. § 1 44 7( c) (e m ph as is ad de d) . Thu s, t o the ex te ntth atLom ax rem ov edhe r st at e cri m in al pro ceed in g t o d is tri ct co urt, the di stric t co urt s ho ul d h av e rem an de d t ha t p orti on of h er ca se to st at e co urt, ra th er tha n d is m is si ng it . Id. The di stric t co urt co ns tru edLom ax ’s no ti ce o f rem ov al as a ls o t ry in g t o in st itut e a § 19 83 cla im . The d is tri ctco urt d is mis se d t ha t cl ai m as f riv ol ou s an d ha ras si ng un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) . W e d is cern no ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n th atde ci si on . See Bi la l v . Driv er, 2 51 F.3d13 46 , 13 49 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). AFFIRMED I N PART, VAC ATED AND REMANDED IN PART. 1

L omax’s request for oral argument is DENI ED. 1 3 Case: 11-15167 Date Filed: 07/17/2012 Page: 3 of 3