Court Opinion

ID: 9408545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 00:00:51.870622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:44.498709
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40699        Document: 00516818252             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/12/2023

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

                                     ____________                              FILED
                                                                           July 12, 2023
                                      No. 22-40699
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                           Clerk
                                    ____________

   Savvy Ventures, L.L.C., c/o Gregory Real Estate, Inc., doing business
   as Gregory Property Management,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Robert Robinson, and All Occupants,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:22-CV-242
                     ______________________________

   Before Clement, Elrod, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Robert Robinson appeals the district court’s order remanding Savvy
   Ventures, L.L.C.’s (Savvy Ventures) state court eviction petition against
   Robinson, which he removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
   § 1443(1). Robinson primarily asserts that controlling authority has been

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40699       Document: 00516818252          Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/12/2023

                                     No. 22-40699

   implicitly overruled and that Savvy Ventures’s counsel violated rules of
   professional conduct and federal law.
            Although a remand order in a removed case is ordinarily not
   appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), that section makes an exception for
   cases removed pursuant to § 1443 for alleged civil rights violations. See BP
   P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 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).
            Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 applies only to rights that are
   stated in terms of racial equality and not to generally applicable constitutional
   rights. Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 791 (1966). Thus, Robinson’s
   allegations, which do not implicate the denial or enforcement of his civil
   rights under a statute protecting racial equality, were insufficient to warrant
   removal under § 1443. See § 1443(1); see also Rachel, 384 U.S. at 792.
   Robinson has shown no error in connection with the district court’s remand
   order.
            This is Robinson’s second unsuccessful appeal challenging a district
   court’s order remanding a case that Robinson removed pursuant to § 1443.
   See Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Robinson, No. 02-40895, 02-40373, 2003 WL
   21108502, 2 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 2003) (unpublished). Accordingly, Robinson
   is warned that the filing of frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive
   pleadings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include
   dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings
   in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See Coghlan v.
   Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988).
            The district court’s remand order is AFFIRMED. Robinson’s
   request that this court disqualify Savvy Ventures’s counsel is DENIED.

                                              2