Annie J. Ashment v. Joseph B. McCarthy
697 F. App'x 679
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- McCarthy (pro se) removed a state-court contempt action brought by his ex-wife, Ashment, for alleged willful failure to pay child support and attorney’s fees after divorce.
- McCarthy asserted federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, 1443, and 1446, claiming violations of constitutional liberty and parental rights and bias by the state judge; he also mentioned the FDCPA.
- The district court remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding no federal-question or diversity jurisdiction and applying the domestic-relations exception where relevant; the order did not expressly analyze § 1443.
- Because remand orders are generally unreviewable, the Eleventh Circuit’s review was limited to whether removal under § 1443 was proper.
- § 1443 removal requires satisfying the two-prong test from Georgia v. Rachel: (1) reliance on a federal right providing specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality, and (2) showing denial or inability to enforce that right in state court.
- The panel held McCarthy failed prong one—he relied on general constitutional protections (due process, parental rights, judicial bias), not on race-based civil-rights statutes—and therefore § 1443 removal was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 was proper | McCarthy: state contempt proceeding denies enforcement of his federal civil rights (parental liberty, due process, judicial impartiality); judge bias prevents vindication in state court | Ashment/State: Action is a state contempt proceeding arising from domestic relations matter; McCarthy invokes general constitutional rights, not the race-based civil-rights statutes § 1443 targets | Denied: McCarthy cannot meet Rachel prong one because he relies on rights of general application, not federal civil rights "stated in terms of racial equality," so § 1443 removal fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (establishes two-prong test for § 1443 removal)
- Alabama v. Conley, 245 F.3d 1292 (Eleventh Circuit discussion of Rachel prongs)
- Castleberry v. Goldome Credit Corp., 408 F.3d 773 (standard of review for § 1443 removals)
- Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (pro se pleadings liberally construed)
- Whole Health Chiropractic & Wellness, Inc. v. Humana Med. Plan, Inc., 254 F.3d 1317 (limitations on appellate review of remand orders)