A & D Security Consultants v. William Gray

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998830173-2]. Originating case number: 8:12-cv-00357-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998912578]. Mailed to: William Gray. [12-1368]

Appeal: 12-1368

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/09/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1368

A & D SECURITY CONSULTANTS; LOWELL DUCKETT,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
WILLIAM GRAY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (8:12-cv-00357-JFM)

Submitted:

July 24, 2012

Decided:

August 9, 2012

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

William T. Gray, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1368

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/09/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

Gray

the

PER CURIAM:
William

appeals

district

court’s

order

remanding his case to state court following removal and denying
permission to proceed in forma pauperis.

We dismiss in part and

affirm in part.
“An order remanding a case to the State court from
which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise,
except that an order remanding a case to the State court from
which

it

[(2006)]

was
shall

removed
be

pursuant

reviewable

to
by

.

.

.

appeal

U.S.C.A. § 1447(d) (West Supp. 2012).

[28
or

U.S.C.

§]

1443

otherwise.”

28

Section 1447(d) prohibits

appellate review only of remand orders based on (1) lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, or (2) a defect in removal other
than subject matter jurisdiction that was timely raised by a
party.

Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12

(1996); Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192,
196 (4th Cir. 2008).
of

these

enumerated

Thus, if the district court remands on one
grounds

and

§ 1443

is

not

implicated,

“review is unavailable no matter how plain the legal error in
ordering the remand.”

Briscoe v. Bell, 432 U.S. 404, 413 n.13

(1977).
In pertinent part, § 1443 authorizes removal of civil
actions from state court that are brought “[a]gainst any person
who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a
2

Appeal: 12-1368

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/09/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of
citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the
jurisdiction thereof.”

28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).

Removal is not

proper unless the federal court determines both “that the right
allegedly denied the removal petitioner arises under a federal
law

providing

for

specific

civil

rights

stated

in

terms

of

racial equality” and “that the removal petitioner is denied or
cannot enforce the specified federal rights in the courts of
[the] State[,] . . . [which] normally requires that the denial
be manifest in a formal expression of state law.”

Johnson v.

Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Although

Gray’s

notice

of

removal

claimed

to

seek

removal pursuant to § 1443, our review of the record leads us to
conclude that this case does not fairly implicate § 1443.
§ 1443(1); Johnson, 421 U.S. at 219.

See

Because the district court

concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
complaint, its remand order is not subject to appellate review.
See § 1447(d); Quackenbush, 517 U.S. at 711-12; Ellenburg, 519
F.3d at 196-98.
Turning

to

the

district

court’s

denial

of

Gray’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying in forma pauperis status based on the information Gray
3

Appeal: 12-1368

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/09/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

provided in his financial affidavit and notice of removal.
Dillard
1980).

v.

Liberty

Finally,

Loan

to

the

Corp.,

626

extent

F.2d

Gray

363,

raises

364

broad

See

(4th

Cir.

claims

of

judicial bias, we find no basis in the record to support Gray’s
unsubstantiated

allegations

and

no

grounds

to

question

the

impartiality of the district court judge.
Accordingly,

we

deny

leave

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis, dismiss the appeal of the remand order, and affirm the
district

court’s

dispense

with

denial

oral

of

argument

in

forma
because

pauperis
the

status.

facts

and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

4