Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
R. Stark LIGON, Jr., as Executive Director of the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Teresa Lynette BLOODMAN, Attorney at Law, ABN 2005055, Defendant - Appellant
Teresa Bloodman appeals the district court's 1 order remanding her disbarment proceeding to Arkansas state court. We have jurisdiction to review the remand order because it involves a removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (civil action commenced in state court can be removed to federal court when action is against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in state court any law providing for equal rights of United States citizens). See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (order remanding case to state court is not reviewable unless case was removed pursuant to, inter alia, § 1443).
We conclude that remand was proper because Bloodman failed to show that she met the requirements for removal under § 1443, as she did not show that, due to state law or an equivalent basis, she will be denied, or cannot enforce, her federal rights in state court. See Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., v. Gannon, 913 F.3d 704, 707 (8th Cir. 2019) (grant of motion to remand is reviewed de novo); Neal v. Wilson, 112 F.3d 351, 355 (8th Cir. 1997) (removal under § 1443 is warranted only if, inter alia, it can be predicted by reference to law of general application that party will be denied, or cannot enforce, federal rights in state court; in unusual case, equivalent basis could be shown for “equally firm prediction” that party will be denied, or cannot enforce, federal rights in state court). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
PER CURIAM.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-1618
Decided: December 18, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)