Charlotte Taylor v. Michael M. Phillips
442 F. App'x 441
11th Cir.2011Background
- Taylor, pro se, appealed a district court remand of a quiet title action that had been removed to federal court.
- Taylor attempted removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, claiming removal was for enforcing equal civil rights.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviews removal de novo but ordinarily cannot review remand decisions; § 1447(d) allows review when removal under § 1443 occurs.
- Court previously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, then reinstated on limited review of remand under § 1443.
- Court concludes Taylor did not satisfy the Rachel two-prong test for § 1443(1) and also lacks eligibility under § 1443(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1443(1) removal was proper. | Taylor relied on general rights; asserts due process/equal protection violations. | Rights must arise under specific federal civil-rights laws, not general principles. | Not proper; Taylor failed the Rachel prong. |
| Whether § 1443(2) removal was proper. | Taylor contends actions by the City were under color of equal-rights law. | Removal allowed only for federal/officers or state officers; Taylor is neither. | Not proper; Taylor did not show removal under § 1443(2). |
Key Cases Cited
- Henson v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 261 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2001) (de novo review of removal jurisdiction)
- Hernandez v. Seminole Cnty., Fla., 334 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2003) (limits on review of remand orders under § 1447(d))
- Cogdell v. Wyeth, 366 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2004) (removal jurisdiction review under § 1447(d))
- Alabama v. Conley, 245 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2001) (Rachel test for § 1443(1) removal)
- City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (1966) (limitations on § 1443(2) for color-of-authority removals)
- Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (1966) (two-prong test for § 1443(1))