State of Alabama v. Lucy
ORDER denying 3 Motion for Reconsideration of District Judge Order filed by William N. Lucy. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 10/8/2014. (copy to Lucy) (cmj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
STATE OF ALABAMA,
Civil Action No. 14-00434-KD-N
WILLIAM N. LUCY,
This action is before the Court on the motion to reconsider the order remanding this
criminal action to the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama filed pro se by Defendant
William N. Lucy (“Lucy”) (doc. 3). Upon consideration and for the reasons set forth herein, the
motion is DENIED.
In general, an “order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is
not reviewable on appeal or otherwise[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). However, an exception exists for
“an order remanding a case . . . pursuant to section . . . 1443 of this title[.]” Id.. Lucy’s action
was removed on basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Thus he falls within the exception and the order of
remand may be reviewed “otherwise”, i.e., on motion for reconsideration. Cook County State's
Attorney ex rel. Devine v. Tyler, 2007 WL 2028547, *1 (N.D. Ill. July 10, 2007) (“We have
jurisdiction to reconsider an order of remand not, as defendant claims, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
Pro. 59(e), but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which permits the review ‘by appeal or
otherwise’ of actions removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1443.”); Sanders v. Bishop, 243 F. 3d 549 (9th
Cir. 2000) (affirming district court’s decision to order remand on an action removed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1443 and finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the motion to
reconsider the remand order).
As grounds in support of his motion, Lucy argues that he incorrectly stated in his removal
petition that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) but removal of a criminal action is
proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1455. He also argues that he has a constitutional right to an unbiased
trier of fact or judge when accused of a crime and that “everyone has the right to an effective
remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him
by the constitution or by law.” (Doc. 3)
The Eleventh Circuit specified the following primary grounds for granting a motion for
reconsideration: an intervening change in controlling law, newly-discovered evidence or newly
available facts, and clear error of law or fact or manifest injustice. Caraway v. Secretary, U.S.
Dept. of Transp., 550 Fed. Appx. 704,2013 WL 6570942, *6 (11th Cir. Dec. 16, 2013) (quoting
Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); Fenello
v. Bank of America, NA, - - - Fed. Appx. - - - , 2014 WL 3906468, *3 n.7 (11th Cir. Aug. 12,
2014) (finding that the district court did not err in denying the motion to reconsider because
plaintiffs “did not identify any intervening change in controlling law or newly available facts that
justified reconsideration of the dismissal of their complaint, and they failed to show that the
dismissal was based on a clear error or resulted in manifest injustice.”) The Eleventh Circuit has
also explained that a motion to reconsider is not meant to “relitigate old matters” or “raise
argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Frantz
v. Walled, 513 Fed.Appx. 815, 822 (11th Cir.2013) (citing Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of
Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir.2005)).
Although Lucy did not reference 28 U.S.C. § 1455 as the proper procedural statute, the
Court applied § 1455 in its analysis of the removal. Moreover, the Court previously considered
Lucy’s argument that he is entitled to an impartial tribunal and that his constitutional rights may
be violated. None of the grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration appear to be present;
therefore, the motion is due to be denied.
DONE this the 7th day of October 2014.
s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?