Court Opinion

ID: 9895719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 16:01:27.497562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:26.664550
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60073         Document: 00516960020             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/07/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 23-60073                                    FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                           November 7, 2023
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   County of Yazoo, Mississippi,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   George Dunbar Prewitt, Jr.,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 3:22-CR-113-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Haynes, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          George Dunbar Prewitt, Jr. removed the adjudication of his speeding
   ticket to federal district court citing, among other statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 1443.
   He now appeals the district court’s order summarily remanding the case back
   to the Yazoo County Court, as well as the district court’s denial of his motion,
   pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284, for a three-judge panel. He contends that the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60073      Document: 00516960020           Page: 2     Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                     No. 23-60073

   Yazoo County Court has no jurisdiction over him, arguing that Mississippi’s
   entire governmental structure, including its court system, is illegitimate
   because the 1890 Mississippi Constitution violated certain Reconstruction
   Era statutes because it (1) was not ratified by the majority of the state’s
   citizens and (2) improperly redrew the congressional districts by illegally
   changing the state’s eastern boundaries. Prewitt has also filed motions to
   stay the remand order and to suspend that motion to stay.
          Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which
   it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C.
   § 1447(d). However, § 1447(d) makes an exception for orders remanding
   cases that were “removed pursuant to” § 1443. Here, Prewitt’s notice of
   removal expressly relied on § 1443; therefore, we have jurisdiction to review
   the remand order under the exception provided in § 1447(d). See BP P.L.C.
   v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021); Whitaker
   v. Carney, 778 F.2d 216, 219 (5th Cir. 1985).
          We review de novo the district court’s remand order. Latiolais v.
   Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 951 F.3d 286, 290 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). A
   criminal prosecution commenced in a state court may be removed to a federal
   district court if the prosecution is “[a]gainst 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.” § 1443(1). To remove a state case under § 1443(1),
   the defendant must show both that (1) the right allegedly denied arises under
   a federal law providing for specific rights stated in terms of racial equality and
   (2) the defendant is denied or cannot enforce the specified federal rights in
   the state courts due to some formal expression of state law. Johnson v.
   Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219-20 (1975). Significantly, the statute applies only
   to rights that are stated in terms of racial equality and not to generally

                                           2
Case: 23-60073      Document: 00516960020           Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                     No. 23-60073

   applicable constitutional rights. See Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792
   (1966).
          Prewitt appears to assert that the cited Reconstruction Era statutes
   constitute the federal civil rights laws stated in terms of racial equality, as
   required under the first prong of Johnson, 421 U.S. at 219. He also appears
   to contend that the 1890 Mississippi Constitution is the formal expression of
   state law by which he is being denied, or cannot enforce, his purported federal
   rights under the Reconstruction Era statutes, as required by the second prong
   of Johnson, 421 U.S. at 219-20. However, Prewitt has not shown that the
   Reconstruction Era statutes “provide[] for specific civil rights stated in terms
   of racial equality.” Johnson, 421 U.S. at 223 (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted). Moreover, he fails to explain how the provisions in
   Mississippi’s 1890 Constitution deprive him, or prevent the enforcement, of
   any race-based civil rights purportedly contained in the cited Reconstruction
   Era statutes. See id. at 219-20. Accordingly, Prewitt has not made the
   required showing for removal under § 1443(1).
          Pursuant to § 2284(a), “[a] district court of three judges shall be
   convened . . . when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the
   apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of any
   statewide legislative body.” Here, the district court determined that there
   was not an action challenging the constitutionality of the voting districts,
   given that the germane action in this case was Prewitt’s criminal proceeding
   based on his speeding ticket, not his notice of removal. Because Prewitt has
   failed to specifically address and allege error in the district court’s reasoning
   on this point, he has abandoned any challenge to the denial of this motion.
   See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th
   Cir. 1987).
          The judgment is AFFIRMED, and the motions are DENIED.

                                          3