Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Florida-vanderbilt Development Corporation and Vanderbilttowers Unit One, Inc., Plaintiffs-appellees, v. George C. Matthews, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 454 F.2d 194
Jan. 21, 1972.Rehearing Denied March 27, 1972
George C. Matthews, pro se.
George Vega, Jr., Naples, Fla., Thomas B. DeWolf, Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and INGRAHAM and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Successful appeal from a remand order after a removal proceeding is a rare event. This case is no exception. Under 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1447(d), we are precluded from reviewing "by appeal or otherwise" any order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed, save in the exceptional circumstance where removal was predicated upon the civil rights removal statute Sec. 1443.
That section provides no basis for removal jurisdiction in this case. Section 1443(2) applies only to "federal officers or agents and those authorized to act with or for them in affirmatively executing duties under any federal law providing for equal civil rights." Greenwood v. Peacock, 1966, 384 U.S. 808, 824, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 1810, 16 L.Ed.2d 944, 954. Clearly Appellant is not within the ambit of that protection. The term "equal civil rights" (emphasis added) in Sec. 1443(1) "must be construed to mean any law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality." (Emphasis added.) Georgia v. Rachel, 1966, 384 U.S. 780, 792, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 1790, 16 L.Ed.2d 925, 933. See also, Bass v. Mississippi, 5 Cir., 1967, 381 F.2d 692, 696-697. Appellant has made no assertion that the State court action is racially motivated or discriminatory. Therefore, he cannot remove under this provision either.
Appeal dismissed.