BRAXTON
v.
FORD
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Roderick Ford sought to remove a state family law divorce case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, claiming deprivation of property rights and novel "manhood" rights of African American fathers. The federal district court lacked jurisdiction and remanded the case to state court because Ford failed to demonstrate that he could not enforce his rights in state courts.
The federal district court lacked jurisdiction over the case. Under § 1443, Ford failed to demonstrate that he had been denied or could not enforce his rights in state courts. A cursory citation to § 1982 without showing inability to enforce rights in state courts is insufficient for removal jurisdiction. Additionally, the bankruptcy case removal was barred by the 30-day removal deadline that had long expired.
[1] Removal under 28 U.S.C. …
[2] Generalized grievances about judicial bias in state court proceedings are insufficient to demonstrate that a party's rights cannot be enforced in state court for purposes of removal under 28 U.S.C. …
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) permits a defendant in a civil state court action to remove the action to federal district court if the action is against a person who is denied or cannot enforce in the state courts 'a right under any law providing for equal civil rights of citizens of the United States.'”
Establishes the statutory basis for removal jurisdiction under § 1443
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoderick Ford sought removal of a civil action from state family law court to federal district court. The underlying state court action involved an un…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Generalized Grievance cases and more on FLexlaw
Roderick Ford again seeks to remove this civil action from state family law court to federal court again. Notice of Removal (Doc. 13). Ford argues that his case should be heard in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. See id. at 1, 7–27. Because I lack jurisdiction over the case, remand is appropriate.
"In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) permits a defendant in a civil state court action to remove the action to federal district court if the action is against a person who is denied or cannot enforce in the state courts 'a right under any law providing for equal civil rights of citizens of the United States.' ” Alabama v. Conley, 245 F. 3d 1292, 1295 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1443).
Ford's basis for removal under § 1443 is that he is being deprived of his property rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 by virtue of the state court's unfair final divorce judgment and “an issue that is perhaps of first impression. the 'manhood' rights of African American fathers, husbands, and men." Not. of Removal at 16-18, 23.
There is no basis for jurisdiction under § 1443. A cursory citation to § 1982 is not enough, because Ford has not sufficiently shown that he “has been denied or cannot enforce that right in the state courts." Conley, 245 F. 3d at 1295. Ford asserts generalized grievances that the state court judges are biased, but that alone does not demonstrate that his rights are not enforced in the state courts. See id. at 1299 (explaining that “allegedly corrupt or otherwise improper motives of an individual state court judge do not show that" an individual's rights will not be enforced). Thus, remand is warranted because Ford's allegations do not fall within the scope of § 1443.
In a more cursory manner, Ford also seeks to remove a different action, In re Ford, 8:16-bk-7504, from Bankruptcy Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1452. But "[r]emoval of cases under § 1452(a) is possible only within ‘30 days after receipt, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim or cause of action sought to be removed.'” Alderwoods Group, Inc. v. Garcia, 682 F. 3d 958, 966 n. 17 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing FED. R. BANKR. P. 9027(a)(3)(A)). His case concluded in 2018. Therefore, he is barred from attempting to remove it.
Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:
1. The Clerk is directed to REMAND this action to the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, and to transmit a certified copy of this order to the clerk of that court.
2. The Clerk is further directed to TERMINATE any pending motions and deadlines, and to CLOSE this case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 4, 2024.
Kathryn Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State of Ala. (Alabama State University) v. Conley, 245 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2001)
- Alderwoods Grp., Inc. v. Reyvis Garcia, 682 F.3d 958 (11th Cir. 2012)