Champa Dahi LLC v. James Thomas Carlan

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-13470 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-13470

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

CHAMPA DAHI LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES THOMAS CARLAN, d.b.a. Alternative Pain Solution, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant, STATE OF GEORGIA, et al., Third Party Defendants.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 5:25-cv-00360-MTT

____________________

Before JORDAN, BRASHER, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13470

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. James Carlan, pro se, appeals from the district court’s September 24, 2025 order remanding a dispossessory action to state court.

The order is not appealable because the district court remanded the action based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), (d) (providing that remands for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are not reviewable on appeal); Kircher v. Putnam Funds Tr., 547 U.S. 633, 642 (2006) (explaining that a remand order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is unreviewable even if it is clearly erroneous). The court’s remand order is not otherwise appealable because Carlan did not remove the action from state court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 or 1443. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442, 1443; BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230, 238 (2021) (explaining that, to remove a case under §§ 1442 or 1443, a notice of removal must assert that the case is removable under one of those provisions).

All pending motions are DENIED as moot.