[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-14716

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:16-cv-00861-PGB-GJK

ADA A. GONZALEZ, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

ALFREDO E. GONZALEZ, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(June 2, 2017)

Before MARCUS, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Ada Gonzalez, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court order remanding 

her state dissolution-of-marriage proceeding back to the state court due to improper 

Case: 16-14716 Date Filed: 06/02/2017 Page: 1 of 5 
2

removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Gonzalez argues that the district court 

incorrectly determined that she was not the defendant in the state court proceedings 

and that the court deprived her of the right to remove her case to federal court. 

After thorough review, we affirm.

We review de novo questions concerning our subject-matter jurisdiction and 

the district court’s removal jurisdiction. Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1204 

(11th Cir. 2006); Henson v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 261 F.3d 1065, 1068 (11th Cir.

2001).

As a general rule, we lack jurisdiction to review an order remanding a case 

to the state court from which it was removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). So, for 

example, we lack jurisdiction under § 1447(d) to review remands based on § 

1447(c). See Hernandez v. Seminole Cty., Fla., 334 F.3d 1233, 1236 (11th Cir. 

2003). Section 1447(c) remands are based on (1) lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction or (2) a motion to remand filed within 30 days of the notice of removal 

that is based on a defect in the removal procedure. Whole Health Chiropractic & 

Wellness, Inc. v. Humana Med. Plan, Inc., 254 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). 

But § 1447(d) expressly permits appellate review of an order remanding a 

case to state court if the case was removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443. 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(d). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, a defendant may remove to a federal 

district court a civil action initiated in the state court if the action is: “(1) Against 

Case: 16-14716 Date Filed: 06/02/2017 Page: 2 of 5 
3

any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under 

any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all 

persons within the jurisdiction thereof; (2) For any act under color of authority 

derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on 

the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1443. A 

party seeking to remove her case pursuant to § 1443(1) must show: (1) that the 

right she relies upon arises under a federal law providing for specific civil rights 

stated in terms of racial equality, and (2) she has been denied or cannot enforce 

that right in state court. Alabama v. Conley, 245 F.3d 1292, 1295 (11th Cir. 2001). 

We have jurisdiction to review a “district court’s implicit determination that 

removal based on § 1443 was improper.” See id. at 1293 n.1. 

Only the defendant has the statutory right to remove a case. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1443 (certain state court cases may be removed to federal court by the defendant); 

Dixie Elec. Co-op v. Citizens of State of Ala., 789 F.2d 852, 857 n.16 (11th Cir. 

1986) (discussing the defendant’s right to remove a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441). 

In Dixie Electric, we looked to the initial complaint and answer, and determined 

that a counterclaim defendant was not a “defendant” for removal purposes. Id. at 

854-55, 857. We explained that no claims were asserted against the counterclaim 

defendant and no relief was sought from it. Id. at 857.

Case: 16-14716 Date Filed: 06/02/2017 Page: 3 of 5 
4

As an initial matter, because the district court specifically determined that 

Gonzalez had improperly removed the case pursuant to § 1443, we have 

jurisdiction to review the remand order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also Conley, 

245 F.3d at 1293 n.1 (holding that we have jurisdiction to review a district court’s 

rejection of the § 1443 removal grounds, even if implicit).

Turning to the merits, we conclude that the district court did not err in 

remanding the case. As we’ve held, the right of removal under § 1443 is only 

granted to the party who is the defendant in the state court case. Here, Gonzalez 

sought to remove her divorce proceeding to federal court; however, she was the 

petitioner in that case. As the district court found, Gonzalez initiated the lawsuit 

against her ex-husband by filing a petition in state court to modify her alimony. 

Although her ex-husband moved to prevent her from submitting additional pro se

filings, he did not file a separate action. Instead, the sanctions preventing her from 

submitting further pro se filings and requiring her to pay attorneys’ fees stemmed 

from the motion she filed to modify alimony and her subsequent pro se filings. 

Gonzalez is not a “defendant” simply because an award of attorney’s fees was 

entered against her or because she believes that the state court violated her rights. 

In short, because Gonzalez was the petitioner, and not the defendant, in the state 

court proceedings, she did not have the right to removal. 

Case: 16-14716 Date Filed: 06/02/2017 Page: 4 of 5 
5

Finally, to the extent Gonzalez seeks review of the denial of her motions for 

reconsideration, we lack jurisdiction to address the issue because she filed each of 

these motions after she filed her notice of appeal and did not amend her notice of 

appeal or file a new notice of appeal. See Weatherly v. Ala. State Univ., 728 F.3d 

1263, 1271 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that in order to seek appellate review of a 

district court order disposing of a tolling post-judgment motion, the appealing 

party is required to filed a separate notice of appeal or amend its original notice to 

designate the motion as subject to appeal); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii) 

(“A party intending to challenge an order disposing of any motion listed in Rule 

4(a)(4)(A) . . . must file a notice of appeal or an amended notice of appeal -- in 

compliance with Rule 3(c) -- within the time prescribed by this Rule measured 

from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion.”).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-14716 Date Filed: 06/02/2017 Page: 5 of 5