FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 23, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 18 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -2 13 47 -UU MATTIE LOMAX, ll ll ll l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us CAPITAL RENTAL AGENCY, INC., AMERIC AN INVESTMENT SERVICES, GREGORY SCHWE ITZER, MYRNA B. PALLEY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 23 , 20 11 )Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Mat ti e Lom ax , pr o s e , app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f he r m ot io n t o reco ns id er the co urt’s re m an d o f he r co m pl ai ntall eg in g Def

en da nt s’ vi ol at io n o f la nd lo rdob li ga ti on s an d re ta li at ory pra ct ic es to st at e co urt. Onap pe al , Lom ax arg ue s t ha t t he di stric t co urt erredin rem an di ng he r co m pl ai ntbe cau se fed eral juri sd ic ti on was p ro pe r an d b ecau se he r st at e cl ai m s as se rti ng th e Defen da nt s’ br each of l an dl or d o bl ig at io ns were m eri to rio us . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a Fed .R.Ci v.P . 60 (b ) m ot io n fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Big

To p K oo le rs , Inc . v. Cir cu s-Man Sn ac ks , Inc . , 52 8 F .3d83 9, 84 2 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 8) . An ab us e o f di sc ret io n o ccurs when th e d is tri ctco urt 1

“ ap pl ie s anin co rrec t l eg al st an da rd , fol lo ws i m pr op er p ro cedur es in m ak in g t he de te rm in at io n, . . . m ak es fin di ng s o f factth atare cl earl y erro ne ou s . . . [or ] ap pl [ie s] th e la w inanun reas on ab le or i nc orrectm an ne r.” Klayv. Huma na , Inc . , 38 2 F .3d12 41 , 12 51 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . “ Pro se pl ead in gs are h el d t o ales s s tri ng en t s tand ardth anpl ead in gs dra fte d by att orne y s an d wi ll , th eref or e, be li be ral ly con stru ed .” Ta nn en ba um v. Un it ed We have jurisdiction to revie w this action beca u s e L o m ax fi led a timely notice of 1 appea l of her Rule 60(b) moti on. Her Rule 60(b) moti on was ti mely beca use that provisi on g ives the litigant a

year in which to file. 2St at es , 14 8 F .3d12 62 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Altho ug h we s ho w len ie nc y to pr o se li ti ga nt s, we wi ll no t s erv e as de fa ct o co un se l o r “ rewri te anot he rwis e d efi ci en t pl ead in g i n o rd er t o s us ta in anact io n.” GJR Invs., In c. v. Co un tyof Esca mbi a, Fla . , 13 2 F .3d13 59 , 13 69 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ), ov erru le d i n p ar t o n o th er gr ou nd s b y Ash cr of t v. Iq ba l , 55 6 U.S. _

__ , 12 9 S .Ct. 1 93 7, 1 73 L.Ed.2d86 8 (2 00 9) ; Ran da ll v. Sc ot t , 61 0 F .3d70 1, 7 09 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (rec og ni zi ng th at Iq ba l effe ct iv el y ov erturne d GJR ’s hei gh te ne d p le ad in g s ta nd ardforcert ai n 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 cas es ). Und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 14 43 (1 ), a d efen da ntm ay rem ov e anact io n t o fe de ral co urt i f itis bro ug ht“ [a]gai ns t an y pe rs on who is de ni edor c an no t en fo rce i n t he co urts of s uc h S ta te a ri gh t u nd er an y law p ro vi di ng forth e equa l ci vi l ri gh ts of ci ti zen 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) . W e h ol d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re m an di ng Lom ax ’s com

pl ai ntto st at e co urt b ecau se , as t he st at e co urt p la in ti ff, s he was n ot en ti tl edto rem ov e th e cas e u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 14 43 . Bas edon a rev ie w of t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs an d t he reco rd , we affi rm th e d is tri ct co urt’s re m an d o f Lom ax ’s com pl ai nt .
3AFFIRMED. 2

L omax’s request for oral ar gument is denied. 2 4