Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/124176697/Order-Remanding-Case
Timestamp: 2017-10-19 07:20:07
Document Index: 753133003

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1447', '§ 1443', '§ 1446', '§ 1443', '§ 1446', '§ 1443', '§ 1446', '§ 1446', '§ 1443', '§ 1443', '§ 1443', '§ 1443', '§ 1443', '§ 1443', '§ 1331', '§ 1443']

Order Remanding Case | State Court (United States) | Jurisdiction
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA BRENT R. RICE on behalf of A.R., J.R., and B.R., Petitioner, v. CAROLINE M. RICE, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE Civil No. 10-2002 (JRT/FLN)
Brent R. Rice, 585 Sunny Shadows, Excelsior, MN 55321, petitioner pro se. Caroline M. Rice, 57198 Caledonia Street, Calumet, MI 49913-3026, respondent pro se.
On May 7, 2010, respondent Caroline M. Rice filed a notice of removal of the instant action to federal court. The Court has reviewed the petition and the notice of removal sua sponte to determine whether the matter was properly removed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Court remands the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 2000).
BACKGROUND On February 10, 2009, Brent R. Rice filed an affidavit and petition for an order for protection in Carver County District Court, naming Caroline M. Rice as respondent.
) The petition also requests that the Court direct local law enforcement officials to enforce the order for protection as well as other existing no-contact orders. at 3.” (Docket No.) Brent Rice’s petition seeks an Ex Parte Order for Protection directing Caroline Rice to have no contact with Brent Rice or the three children and excluding her from Brent Rice’s home and workplace.) This document asserts that the Court has “federal jurisdiction under 28 U. at 3. “from foster care in direct violation of the existing no contact order from Carver [County] Child Protection. for Order for Protection at 1. 3.) On May 7. at 1.) All three children reside with Brent Rice. (Id. from the school that one or more of the children attend.C. at 5.R.) The affidavit states that Caroline Rice “has repeatedly ignored no contact orders from both Hennepin Family Court and Carver County Child Protection. Notice of Removal Ex. (Id. Caroline Rice filed a notice of removal to this Court.” (Id. 1.) The affidavit indicates that the Rices married in 1988 and dissolved their marriage in 2006.) Caroline -2- .” (Id. Rachel.) Along with the Notice of Removal.R. 2010. at 1. at 1. (Id. and from the children’s extracurricular activities. 1. Docket No. J.) The affidavit states that the Rices are parents of A. and that Brent Rice filed the petition on behalf of the three children.) For example. at 6.(Pet’r’s Aff. (Notice of Removal. 3. § 1443.S. (Id...R. Caroline Rice filed a “Notice of Pre-Emptive Constitutional Challenge to the Unlawful Discrimination of Separate Racial Classes via Georgia v. & Pet. she took A.” (Id.R.. 1. (Id. and B.” and she “was found in [Brent Rice’s] home without permission. Docket No.
First. the notice of removal suggests that removal was untimely. § 1446(b).” but she argues that § 1443 nonetheless provides a basis for jurisdiction because the underlying petition implicates “her freedoms of association with her own children.” and therefore the Court summarily remands the case to state court. See 28 U. at 2-4. but it omits the state court orders attached to that petition. § 1446(c)(4).C.S. and orders served upon” Caroline Rice. It includes Brent Rice’s affidavit and petition for order for protection. § 1443 provides the jurisdictional basis for removal.S. Third.S. Section 1443 states that a defendant may remove from state court any action “[a]gainst any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right -3- . 28 U. Id. the Court finds that the petition for order for protection and the notice of removal fail to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the petition. Even assuming that Caroline Rice had complied with the procedural requirements for removal set forth in § 1446. the notice of removal does not contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.C. § 1446(a).C. pleadings.S. it does not include “a copy of all process.” 28 U. Rice argues that 28 U.” (Id.) ANALYSIS The Court has examined the notice of removal and finds that “it clearly appears on the face of the notice and [the] exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted. Second.C. The Court notes several flaws with the notice of removal.Rice states that she is white and she concedes that “there is no racial discrimination component in this case.
C.” 384 U. the Supreme Court held that this phrase “must be construed to mean any law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality. § 1443 cannot form the basis for jurisdiction in this case. 780. 792 (1966). .S.” (id. 384 U. “there is no racial discrimination component in this case.S. 3 at 2. § 1443(1).” such rights cannot form a basis for jurisdiction under § 1443. Rachel.” In Georgia v. As Rice concedes. the right that Rice asserts is not under “any law providing for . 421 U. equal civil rights.” 28 U. “[§] 1443 applies only to denials of specific rights of racial equality and not to the whole -4- . and (2) the removing party must be unable to enforce that right in state court. but the Court in Rachel expressly rejected the argument that the language of § 1443(1) encompasses such general rights arising under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” including “her freedoms of association with her own children. or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof. at 4). at 792. Rachel.S. There are two components to removal jurisdiction under § 1443(1): (1) the right must arise under a federal law providing for equal rights.) Therefore. First. The Court explained that “because the guarantees of those clauses are phrased in terms of general application available to all persons or citizens. 219-20 (1975). 213. Rice argues that the petition for order for protection implicates her “natural personal freedoms. See Johnson v. As the Eighth Circuit subsequently explained.under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States.” (Docket No. Mississippi. . rather than in the specific language of racial equality that § 1443 demands.S.
” Williams v. 88 F. 1978) (per curiam). Dorsey & Whitney. The Court further finds that 28 U. Sullivan v.” United States ex rel. v.gamut of constitutional rights. If.3d 351. Wilson. 1996). 112 F. 588 F. 1997).C. 384 U. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). the notice of removal does not “show that [Rice] is denied or cannot enforce [her] right[s] in state court. § 1331 does not provide an alternative basis for jurisdiction.” such as freedom of association or the right to raise one’s children.3d 536. 808.3d 700. the state district court does not respect and enforce her federal rights. Missouri. “A federal defense. “Federal question jurisdiction exists if the well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Second. Peacock. “does not give the defendant the right to remove to federal court. the vindication of the defendant’s federal rights is left to the state courts except in the rare situations where it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the state court.S. 702 (8th Cir.S. 147 F. 542-43 (8th Cir.2d 579. 580 (8th Cir. see also City of Greenwood v. The petition for order for protection does not satisfy either of these requirements. Ragnone. as Caroline Rice contends. she may appeal the state court judgment in the state judicial system and -5- . of Am. 355 (8th Cir.”). 827-28 (1966) (“Under § 1443(1).” See Neal v.” Gaming Corp.
2010 at Minneapolis. records. Rice’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Docket No.then may seek direct review in the United States Supreme Court. DATED: May 21. Minnesota. 2] is DENIED as moot. See Neal. The matter is REMANDED to the State of Minnesota District Court. ORDER Based on the foregoing. 112 F. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. First Judicial District. ____s/ ____ JOHN R. Caroline M. and all the files. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. and proceedings herein. Carver County.3d at 355. 2. TUNHEIM United States District Judge -6- .
Documents Similar To Order Remanding Case
Ricky Lee Hendricks v. Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, Sued As
Antonio Miguel Chavez v. John Shanks, 111 F.3d 140, 10th Cir. (1997)
Salazar v. LeMaster, 10th Cir. (2005)
George A. Weidner v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation, State of Florida, 708 F.2d 614, 11th Cir. (1983)
62374_2010-2014
United States v. Certified Industries, Inc., Doral Park Avenue Hotel Corporation, Carol Management Corporation and Hotel Seventy Park Avenue Corporation, Meteor Concrete Corporation, 361 F.2d 857, 2d Cir. (1966)
Omri E. Daniels, Jr., Barge Hiskey and Bentley M. McMullin v. C. Sewell Thomas, 225 F.2d 795, 10th Cir. (1955)
Edwin Edgar Jones v. Norman Hess and the State of Oklahoma, 681 F.2d 688, 10th Cir. (1982)