Pledger v. State of Kansas, 686 F. App'x 593

Tamika J. Pledger was criminally charged in Kansas after driving her car into a group of teenagers; she pleaded not guilty at the preliminary hearing.
Pledger filed several pretrial motions in state court (jurisdiction, evidence tampering, falsified documents, judicial misconduct); Kansas Supreme Court denied her mandamus petition.
On April 5, 2016 Pledger filed a civil complaint in federal court and on May 12 filed a Notice of Removal seeking to remove the state criminal case to federal court.
Defendants moved to remand; the district court granted the motion, finding the Notice of Removal untimely (a defect in removal procedure).
Pledger appealed the remand; she asserted federal civil-rights grounds (28 U.S.C. § 1343) and cited Rule 60, but did not invoke or adequately plead removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443.
The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the remand was based on a procedural defect (untimely removal) and Pledger failed to show a proper § 1443 basis for removal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district-court remand is reviewable on appeal	Pledger sought review of remand and relied on federal civil-rights jurisdiction and Rule 60 as federal grounds	Defendants argued remand was for untimely removal, a defect in removal procedure making the remand non-reviewable under § 1447(d)	Court held it lacked jurisdiction: remand was for a removal-defect (untimely), so § 1447(d) bars appellate review
Whether removal could be sustained under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (to permit appellate review)	Pledger alleged civil-rights violations under § 1343 and cited Rule 60 but did not plead racial-equality claims or the § 1443 elements	Defendants argued Pledger did not meet § 1443's two-prong test (no federal law stated in racial-equality terms; no showing state law prevents vindication of rights)	Court held Pledger did not plead the first prong of § 1443 (no racial-equality federal right alleged); thus § 1443 did not apply and appellate jurisdiction was lacking

Miller v. Lambeth, 443 F.3d 757 (10th Cir. 2006) (clarifies that remands for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or defects in removal procedure are not appealable under § 1447(d); sets out review limits for § 1443 assertions)