Lawson v. Lawson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 25-3097
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-3097 Document: 59-1 Date Filed: 12/11/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 11, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JONATHAN DAVID LAWSON,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 25-3097 (D.C. No. 5:25-CV-04045-JWB-TJJ) ANGELIINA LYNN LAWSON, (D. Kan.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before CARSON, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Appellant Angeliina Lynn Lawson 1 unsuccessfully tried to remove Kansas

state-court custody proceedings to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). That

provision permits removal when the petitioner “is denied or cannot enforce in the

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined *

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

We construe Ms. Lawson’s pleadings liberally in light of her pro se status, 1

but we will not construct a legal theory on her behalf. See Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997). Appellate Case: 25-3097 Document: 59-1 Date Filed: 12/11/2025 Page: 2

courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of

citizens of the United States.” Ms. Lawson invoked § 1443(1) on the ground that

Kansas state courts are violating her rights under Title II of the Americans with

Disabilities Act. She says those rights are, or should be, “civil rights” within the

meaning of § 1443(1). Controlling precedent says otherwise.

The Supreme Court has clearly stated that a petitioner seeking removal under

§ 1443(1) must allege claims that “arise[] under a federal law providing for specific

civil rights stated in terms of racial equality.” Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213,

219 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). We reiterated this principle in Miller

v. Lambeth, 443 F.3d 757, 761-62 (10th Cir. 2006). Ms. Lawson’s claims have

nothing to do with racial equality, so the district court correctly concluded it lacked

subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded her case to state court. Exercising

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm for the same reasons set forth in the

district court’s well-reasoned order entered on May 30, 2025. In so doing, we reject

Ms. Lawson’s additional argument that the district court should have addressed her

jury-trial demand and her pending motions to compel state-court action. It would

have been inappropriate for the district court to do so given the lack of jurisdiction.

All pending motions are denied.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge