COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES ON BEHALF OF BOERTLEIN v. CLARKE (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Respondent-Appellant Roger W. Clarke, Jr. (“Clarke”), pro se, appeals from orders of District Court remanding this action to the Family Court of the State of New York and denying reconsideration of that decision. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. When a district court timely remands an action because of “a flaw encompassed by [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c)—i.e., a defect in the removal procedure or the absence of subject matter jurisdiction—§ 1447(d) makes the remand unreviewable.” In re WTC Disaster Site, 414 F.3d 352, 364 (2d Cir. 2005); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (“An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.”).¹ Here, the District Court remanded the action pursuant to § 1447(c) after finding that removal was untimely, and that Clarke failed to attach certain required documents to his notice of removal. See Comm'r of Soc. Servs. v. Clarke, No. 17-CV-6030, 2017 WL 5195228, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2017). Because these defects constitute “flaw[s] encompassed by § 1447(c),” we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of Clarke's appeal.

We have reviewed all of the arguments with respect to jurisdiction raised by Clarke on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Indeed, we have previously held that “the ‘or otherwise’ language of section 1447(d) [even] bars district courts from reconsidering orders remanding cases on section 1447(c) grounds.” Shapiro v. Logistec USA, Inc., 412 F.3d 307, 312 (2d Cir. 2005).