Savvy Ventures v. Robinson

Case: 22-40699 Document: 00516818252 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
July 12, 2023
No. 22-40699
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
Savvy Ventures, L.L.C., c/o Gregory Real Estate, Inc., doing business
as Gregory Property Management,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Robert Robinson, and All Occupants,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:22-CV-242
______________________________
Before Clement, Elrod, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Robert Robinson appeals the district court’s order remanding Savvy
Ventures, L.L.C.’s (Savvy Ventures) state court eviction petition against
Robinson, which he removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1443(1). Robinson primarily asserts that controlling authority has been
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40699 Document: 00516818252 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2023
No. 22-40699
implicitly overruled and that Savvy Ventures’s counsel violated rules of
professional conduct and federal law.
Although a remand order in a removed case is ordinarily not
appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), that section makes an exception for
cases removed pursuant to § 1443 for alleged civil rights violations. See BP
P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021); Whitaker
v. Carney, 778 F.2d 216, 219 (5th Cir. 1985). We review de novo the district
court’s remand order. Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 951 F.3d 286, 290
(5th Cir. 2020) (en banc).
Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 applies only to rights that are
stated in terms of racial equality and not to generally applicable constitutional
rights. Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 791 (1966). Thus, Robinson’s
allegations, which do not implicate the denial or enforcement of his civil
rights under a statute protecting racial equality, were insufficient to warrant
removal under § 1443. See § 1443(1); see also Rachel, 384 U.S. at 792.
Robinson has shown no error in connection with the district court’s remand
order.
This is Robinson’s second unsuccessful appeal challenging a district
court’s order remanding a case that Robinson removed pursuant to § 1443.
See Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Robinson, No. 02-40895, 02-40373, 2003 WL
21108502, 2 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 2003) (unpublished). Accordingly, Robinson
is warned that the filing of frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive
pleadings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include
dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings
in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See Coghlan v.
Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988).
The district court’s remand order is AFFIRMED. Robinson’s
request that this court disqualify Savvy Ventures’s counsel is DENIED.
2