686 F.3d 1225
11th Cir.2012Background
- Lloyd, an indigent prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action in Florida state court against Appellants and others.
- Appellants removed to the Middle District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a), 1446.
- The district court noted Lloyd’s status as a “three strikes” litigant under the PLRA and considered whether Lloyd could circumvent § 1915(g) by removable federal claims.
- The district court remanded the case to state court, ordering refund of the removal filing fee and citing PLRA purposes as justification.
- Appellants appealed the remand order, challenging the district court’s authority to remand after removal.
- The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court lacked authority to remand because it had original federal-question jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court could remand despite removal | Lloyd’s status allowed removal; district court erred in remanding | District court could remand to state court under PLRA considerations | Remand improper; district court lacked authority to remand |
| Whether PLRA § 1915(g) overrides removal rights | Removal rights prevail; § 1915(g) cannot bar removal | PLRA restricts access, justifying remand to curtail litigation | PLRA does not authorize remand; removal jurisdiction remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976) (district courts cannot rewrite removal statutes)
- In re City of Mobile, 75 F.3d 605 (11th Cir. 1996) (remand grounds not provided by controlling statute improper)
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) (remand appealability when not based on jurisdictional defects)
- Lisenby v. Lear, 674 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2012) (removal proper; district court cannot defeat federal claims under PLRA)
- Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2002) (PLRA aims to curtail abusive prisoner litigation)