Lisenby v. Lear
674 F.3d 259
4th Cir.2012Background
- Lisenby, an inmate, filed a state-court complaint against Chesterfield Police Department members for harassment and federal rights violations.
- Defendants removed the action to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441 based on federal claims.
- A magistrate recommended remand to state court; the district court remanded on February 26, 2010.
- District court based its remand on PLRA § 1915(g) three-strikes logic and non-payment of filing fee.
- Plaintiff did not object to removal or remand; Defendants timely appealed.
- Court reverses remand, reinstates action for proceedings in district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the remand order is reviewable on appeal. | Lisenby argues remand was improper despite 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). | Lear argues remand was within district court's authority. | Remand order is reviewable under exceptions to § 1447(d). |
| Whether PLRA § 1915(g) strips jurisdiction from the district court. | PLRA makes three-strikes prisoners ineligible for federal in forma pauperis relief. | Removal and jurisdiction remain, PLRA is not jurisdictional. | PLRA is procedural, not jurisdictional; district court had jurisdiction to hear federal claims. |
| Whether the district court lacked statutory basis to remand. | Removal to federal court was proper; remand was not mandated by statute. | Remand aligned with PLRA aims to limit frivolous filings. | District court exceeded authority by remanding; remand reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (U.S. 1976) (district courts cannot remand for justifiable but unstatutory reasons)
- In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, LLC, 460 F.3d 576 (4th Cir. 2006) (present appellate review exceptions to § 1447(d) apply)
- Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng'g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385 (4th Cir. 2004) (jurisdictional vs. procedural remand analysis; removal statutes govern)