2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-25-2009 

# T C IF Reo C IT LL C v

. P atric i a Gra

y P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2966

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " T C I F Re o C IT LL C v

. P atric i a Gr a

y " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 594. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/594BL D- 3 1 1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2966

___________ TCI F REO CI T, LL C

v. P A T R IC IA R . G R A Y ; T . BA RR Y GR AY; AL L OC CU P ANT S OF 1 4 1 7 T H AVE NUE

T . B a rry G r a y, A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 02766) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le E d m u n d V . L u d w ig

____________________________________ S u b m itte d f

o r P o s s ib le D is m is s a l d u e to a J u ri s d ic tio n a l D e f e c t o r P u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 Sept ember11, 2009 B efor e: M cK E E , FI SH E R and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed Sept ember25, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM T . B a rryG ra ya p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is m o tio n to p ro c e e d in2

fo rm a p au p eris an d rem an d ing h is ci v il ac ti o n to the C o u rto f C o m m o n P leas o f D elaw are C o u n ty . W e w il l aff

irm in p art, rev erse in p art, an d rem an d the m att er. I n J une 2008, G r ayfi l ed a mot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s w i th a capt i on l i s t i ng hi m s el f as a def

endantand TC I F R E O C I T , L L C as pl ai nt i ff. H e di d notdes cr i be anycl ai m s he w i s hed t o br i ng orexpl ai n w hetherhe w as att empt i ng t o r emove an act i on f ro m sta te c o u rt. T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied G ra y ’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris and di s m i s s ed the ac t i on forl ack of s ubj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on. O n appea l , w e vac at ed the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derand r emanded the mat t erforthe D i s tr i ctC our tt o det erm i ne w hetherG r ayw as fi nanci al l yel i gi bl e t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s and t o gi ve G r ayan o p p o rt u n ity to s ta te th e le g a l a n d f a c tu a l b a s is f

o r t h e a c tio n . O n r emand, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi r ect ed G r ayt o pr ovi de a s t at ementof the bas i s for f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . Gr a ya r g u e d th a tth e Di s tr i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367, 1441( a) , 1441( b) , 1443, and 1446 and thatthe ac t i on coul d be re m o v e d to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt u n d e r § § 1 3 3 2 , 1 4 4 1 (a ), 1 4 4 1 (b ), 1 4 4 1 (c ), 1 4 4 3 , a n d 1 4 4 6 . H e expl ai ned thatthe ac t i on w as a ej ectm entci vi l s ui ti n w hi ch A ppel l ee a l l eged that G r aydi d nothave the r i ghtt o pos s es s a pi ece of r eal pr operty ; G r ayar gued thatr emoval under§ 1443 w as j us t i fi ed bec aus e hi s Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s w er e bei ng vi ol at ed. A ft er descr i bing G ray ’s pri or at t em pts t o ch al l eng e st at e forecl osure proceed i ng s, the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overthe r emoved act i on undert heT h e Ro o k e r - F e l d ma n d o c tr i n e d e p r i v e s a Di s tr i c tCo u r to f j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w, 1 di r ect l yori ndi r ect l y , a s t at e courtadj udi cat i on. See D . C . C our tof A ppeal s v. Fel dm an, 4 6 0 U .S . 4 6 2 (1 9 8 3 ); R o o k e r v . F id e lity T ru s t C o ., 2 6 3 U .S . 4 1 3 , 4 1 6 (1 9 2 3 ). 3 doctr i ne of Rooker - Fel dm an and thatabs t ent i on w as appr opr i at e underY oungerv. 1 H arr i s , 401 U . S. 37 ( 1971) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tr emanded the mat t ert o the C our tof C o m m o n P lea s o f

D e law a re C o u n ty , an d G ra yf iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. D e n ial o f

m o tio n to p ro c e e d in f

o rm a p a u p e ris W e f i r s ta d d r e s s th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f Gr a y ’ s mo t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n f o r ma p a u p e ris. T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n o n th e g ro u n d s th a t th e re w a s n o b a sis u p o n w h ich G ra yc o u ld o b tain re lief. W e re v iew th e d e n ial o f a m o tio n to p ro c e e d in form a paupe r i s forabus e of di s cr et i on. A dki ns v. E . I . D uPontde N emours & C o. , 335 U . S . 3 3 1 , 3 3 7 (19 4 8 ); B u ll o ck v . S u o m ela, 71 0 F . 2 d 1 0 2 , 1 0 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). H o w ev er, i f the appl i cat i on i s compl et e, the D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d onl ycons i derw hetherthe appl i canti s economi cal l yel i gi bl e t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s . Si nw el l v. Shapp, 536 F. 2d 15, 19 ( 3d C i r . 1976) . I ti s onl yaft erl eave t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s has been gr ant ed thatthe ana l y s i s under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) i s undert aken a nd a compl ai nt m aybe di s m i s s ed as fr i vol ous . See D eut s ch v. U ni t ed St at es , 67 F. 3d 1080, 1085 n. 5 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); R o m a n v . Je f f e s, 9 0 4 F .3 d 1 9 2 , 1 9 4 n .1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). T h u s, w e a g a in c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris o n th e g ro u n d s th a t G ra yw a s n o t en tit led to re lief in f e d e ra l co u rt. I n hi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s fi l ed i n the D i s tr i ctC our t , G r ay4

i ndi cat ed thathi s i ncome w as appr oxi m at el y$741 perm onth and he w as unabl e t o m eet h is o b lig a tio n s f

o r f o o d , u til iti e s, a n d m e d ica l n e e d s. W e b e liev e th a t G ra yis e n tit led to p ro c e e d in f

o rm a p a u p e ris a n d w ill re v e rse th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r to th e e x ten t th a t it deni ed G r ay ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s . W e w i l l r emand t he mat t ert o the Di s tr i c tCo u r tf

o ri tt o e n t e ra n o r d e rg r a n t i n g Gr a y ’ s mo t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n f o r ma pau peri s. R em an d to the stat e c o u rt A n o rd e r re m a n d in g a c a se to th e sta te c o u rt f ro m w h ich it w a s re m o v e d is g e n e ra llyn o t ap p e a lab le. 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 7 (d ). O n e e x c e p tio n is w h e n th e re m o v a l is bas ed on 28 U . S. C . § 1443. B eca us e G r ayi nvoked § 1443, w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r emand or dert o the ext entthati tdeni ed r emoval pur s uantt o § 1443. Sect i on 1443( 1) pr ovi des thatan ac t i on m aybe r emoved i f i ti s “[a ] gai ns tany per s on w ho i s deni ed orcannotenfor ce i n the court s of s uch St at e a r i ghtunderanyl aw pr ovi di ng forthe equa l ci vi l r i ght s of ci t i zens of the U ni t ed St at es , orof al l per s ons w i thin the jur i sdi ct i on thereof. ” W e hav e held that the civi l ri gh t s r em ov al st atute i s a narr ow exce pt i on t o t he rul e thats t at e courtact i ons m aybe r emoved t o fede r al di s tr i ct courtonl yi f fe der al j ur i s di ct i on i s evi denton the fa ce of pl ai nt i ff’ s w el l - pl eade d compl ai nt . See D avi s v. G l ant on, 107 F. 3d 1044 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . T he Supr eme C our thas arti cu lat ed the p rec ise circu m stan ce s req u ir ed to su stai n rem o v al un d er § 1 4 4 3 (1), cl ar i fy i ng thatr emoval r equi r es s at i s fac t i on of a tw o- pr ong t es t : a s t at e courtdefe ndant5

m us tdemonstr at e both ( 1) thathe i s bei ng depr i ved of r i ght s guar ant eed bya fe der al l aw “pr ovi di ng for. . . equal ci vi l r i ght s ; and ( 2) thathe i s “deni ed orcannotenfor ce thatr i ght in th e c o u rt s ” o f

th e s ta te . S ta te o f

G e o rg ia v . R a c h e l, 3 8 4 U .S . 7 8 0 , 7 8 8 (1 9 6 6 ). In th e D istric t C o u rt a n d o n a p p e a l, G ra ya rg u e s o n lyth a t h is F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts h a v e b e e n v io late d . T h is c o n c lu so rya lleg a tio n is in su f f icie n t to s uppor tr emoval under§ 1443. B eca us e w e fi nd § 1443 i nappl i cabl e, G r ayi s notent i t l ed to a n yf u rth e r re v iew o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r o f re m o v a l. Sum m aryact i on i s appr opr i at e i f ther e i s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on pr es ent ed i n t he ap p ea l. S ee T h ir d C ir cu itL A R 2 7 . 4 . F o r th e a b o v e re aso n s, w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or deras t o the deni al of r emoval , s um m ar i l yr ever s e the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s or deras t o i t s deni al of the i n form a paupe r i s m ot i on, and r emand t he mat t erfor th e D is tr ic t C o u rt to e n te r a n o rd e r g ra n tin g G ra y ’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ri s . S e e T h ir d C ir c u it I .O .P . 1 0 .6 .