Savvy Ventures v. Robinson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 12, 2023
• Docket: 22-40699
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-40699 Document: 00516818252 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED July 12, 2023 No. 22-40699 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________

Savvy Ventures, L.L.C., c/o Gregory Real Estate, Inc., doing business as Gregory Property Management,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Robert Robinson, and All Occupants,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:22-CV-242 ______________________________

Before Clement, Elrod, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Robert Robinson appeals the district court’s order remanding Savvy Ventures, L.L.C.’s (Savvy Ventures) state court eviction petition against Robinson, which he removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). Robinson primarily asserts that controlling authority has been

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-40699 Document: 00516818252 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2023

No. 22-40699

implicitly overruled and that Savvy Ventures’s counsel violated rules of professional conduct and federal law. Although a remand order in a removed case is ordinarily not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), that section makes an exception for cases removed pursuant to § 1443 for alleged civil rights violations. See BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021); Whitaker v. Carney, 778 F.2d 216, 219 (5th Cir. 1985). We review de novo the district court’s remand order. Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 951 F.3d 286, 290 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 applies only to rights that are stated in terms of racial equality and not to generally applicable constitutional rights. Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 791 (1966). Thus, Robinson’s allegations, which do not implicate the denial or enforcement of his civil rights under a statute protecting racial equality, were insufficient to warrant removal under § 1443. See § 1443(1); see also Rachel, 384 U.S. at 792. Robinson has shown no error in connection with the district court’s remand order. This is Robinson’s second unsuccessful appeal challenging a district court’s order remanding a case that Robinson removed pursuant to § 1443. See Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Robinson, No. 02-40895, 02-40373, 2003 WL 21108502, 2 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 2003) (unpublished). Accordingly, Robinson is warned that the filing of frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive pleadings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988). The district court’s remand order is AFFIRMED. Robinson’s request that this court disqualify Savvy Ventures’s counsel is DENIED.