Court Opinion

ID: 9840115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 13:00:38.973239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:55.430737
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12168   Document: 37-1    Date Filed: 09/15/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-12168
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       AMH 2014-1 BORROWER, LLC ISAOA,
       c/o O’Kelley & Sorohan, Attorneys at
       Law, LLC,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       CATHERINE SMITH,
       DWIGHT SMITH,
       BRYANT SMITH,

                                               Defendants-Appellants.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12168     Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 09/15/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                     Opinion of the Court                 22-12168

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00536-SEG
                          ____________________

       Before GRANT, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              The Smiths, proceeding pro se, seek review of the district
       court’s order remanding this case back to the Magistrate Court of
       Fulton County for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Generally,
       remand orders are not appealable. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC
       v. Hanover Ins. Co., 995 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2021). Section
       1447(d) is specific on this matter: “[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); see also MSP Recovery
       Claims, 995 F.3d at 1294. There are, however, two statutory
       exceptions. A remand order is reviewable on appeal if “it was
       removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
       And removing a case “pursuant to” § 1442 or § 1443, for purposes
       of establishing reviewability, “just means that a defendant’s notice
       of removal must assert the case is removable in accordance with or
       by reason of one of those provisions.” BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City
       Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021) (quotation
       omitted).
            The Smiths, in their notice of removal, stated that they were
       removing their case to federal court “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
USCA11 Case: 22-12168     Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 09/15/2023    Page: 3 of 3

       22-12168              Opinion of the Court                        3

       1441, and 1446.” They did not remove this case “pursuant to
       section 1442 or 1443.” See AMH 2014-1 Borrower, LLC ISAOA v.
       Smith, No. 1:22-CV-0536-JPB-JSA, 2022 WL 2388711, at *5 (N.D.
       Ga. Mar. 30, 2022) (“Defendants do not expressly seek to remove
       this action based on 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).”), report and
       recommendation adopted, No. 1:22-CV-0536-SEG, 2022 WL 2442807
       (N.D. Ga. June 16, 2022). While we hold the allegations of pro se
       litigants to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
       by lawyers,” we may not “serve as de facto counsel for a party” or
       “rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an
       action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th
       Cir. 2014).
               Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the
       district court’s remand order. We therefore GRANT AMH’s
       motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and DENY as moot
       AMH’s motion to expedite this appeal.