Florida-Vanderbilt Development Corporation and Vanderbilt Towers Unit One, Inc. v. George C. Matthews

Fifth Circuit

Florida-Vanderbilt Development Corporation and Vanderbilt Towers Unit One, Inc. v. George C. Matthews

454 F.2d 194

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 27, 1972

Docket71-2303

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 454 F.2d 194 (Florida-Vanderbilt Development Corporation and Vanderbilt Towers Unit One, Inc. v. George C. Matthews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Florida-Vanderbilt Development Corporation and Vanderbilt Towers Unit One, Inc. v. George C. Matthews, 454 F.2d 194 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

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. § 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 § 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 § 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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. § 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 § 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 § 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

454 F.2d 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-vanderbilt-development-corporation-and-vanderbilt-towers-unit-one-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack