From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

St. Louis Cnty. v. Thomas

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Jan 3, 2014
549 F. App'x 596 (8th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

No. 13-2164

01-03-2014

St. Louis County Plaintiff - Appellee v. Albert D. Thomas Defendant - Appellant


Appeal rrom United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis


[Unpublished]

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

Albert Thomas sought to remove to federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), a state criminal case he alleged was pending against him in St. Louis County Municipal Court, Missouri. The district court summarily remanded the case, and Thomas appealed.

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

We have authority to review the district court's remand order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). We hold that the district court properly remanded the case because the notice of removal did not comply with the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1455, and did not meet the requirements for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). See 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a), (b)(1), (b)(4); Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219-20 (1975) (outlining two-prong test for removal under § 1443(1)).

Accordingly, we affirm.


Summaries of

St. Louis Cnty. v. Thomas

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Jan 3, 2014
549 F. App'x 596 (8th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

St. Louis Cnty. v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:St. Louis County Plaintiff - Appellee v. Albert D. Thomas Defendant …

Court:United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

Date published: Jan 3, 2014

Citations

549 F. App'x 596 (8th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

Young v. Iowa

Further, neither the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1455 nor the removal requirements under 28 U.S.C.…

Iowa v. Miller

Further, neither the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1455 nor the removal requirements under 28 U.S.C.…