Martin v. 195th JDC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 7, 2025
• Docket: 24-10383
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-10383 Document: 49-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-10383 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ March 7, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce Jarrod Martin, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

195th Judicial District Court Criminal District Court No. 2,

Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:24-CV-645 ______________________________

Before Haynes, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Jarrod Martin, a pretrial detainee awaiting trial in Dallas, Texas, attempted to remove his criminal proceedings from state court to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. In his removal petition, he alleges the state court held pretrial proceedings outside his presence in violation of the Texas Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Fourteenth Amendment. The district _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-10383 Document: 49-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2025

No. 24-10383

court remanded the matter, finding that Martin failed to allege a violation of federal law protecting against racial discrimination, which is required for removal under § 1443. Martin appeals that determination. We conclude that we have appellate jurisdiction to decide this issue, 1 but we AFFIRM the district court’s order remanding the matter to state court, as Martin failed to allege a violation of federal law pertaining to racial equity. See Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 791 (1966).

_____________________ 1 Compare Texas v. Gulf Water Benefaction Co., 679 F.2d 85, 86 (5th Cir. 1982) (affirming remand on the merits when the removal petition “merely complain[ed] in a conclusory way of deprivations of certain . . . non-race-related civil rights”), and Williams v. Nichols, 464 F.2d 563, 564 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (same), with Flitsch v. Guardino, No. 22-20247, 2023 WL 4015125, at *1 (5th Cir. June 13, 2023) (per curiam) (“We have repeatedly held that when a defendant’s attempted removal lacks even the barest connection with the requirements of § 1443, merely invoking that provision does not supply jurisdiction to view a remand order.”), and Easley v. Easley, 62 F.3d 392, 1995 WL 449817, at *1 (5th Cir. June 28, 1995) (per curiam) (holding no appellate jurisdiction when defendant “fail[ed] to mention racial equality at all”).