Westridge Place Apartments LP v. Veronica Delph, No. 18-1817 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Kelly, Grasz and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil procedure. The district court did not err in remanding to state court this unlawful-detainer action as plaintiff failed to show sufficient grounds for removal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1443. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1817 ___________________________ Westridge Place Apartments LP lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Veronica Delph lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: November 20, 2018 Filed: December 3, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before KELLY, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Veronica Delph appeals after the district court1 remanded to state court an unlawful-detainer action she attempted to remove to federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1 The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. §§ 1441 and 1443. We have jurisdiction only to the extent the removal was based on § 1443. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Exercising that limited authority, we conclude that the district court’s remand was proper because Delph failed to show sufficient grounds to support her invocation of § 1443. In order to remove under § 1443(1), the party must show reliance on a law providing for equal civil rights stated in terms of racial equality. Neal v. Wilson, 112 F.3d 351, 355 (8th Cir. 1997). “Removal is warranted only if it can be predicted by reference to a law of general application that the defendant will be denied or cannot enforce the specified federal rights in the state courts.” Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 800 (1966). Delph has failed to make that showing here, as she has not plausibly alleged an inability to enforce a federal right in state court. She is likewise unable to satisfy the requirements of § 1443(2) because she is not a federal officer or agent. See City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824 (1966) (section 1443(2) “confers a privilege of removal only upon federal officers or agents and those authorized to act with or for them in affirmatively executing duties under any federal law providing for equal civil rights”); Bauer v. Transitional Sch. Dist. of St. Louis, 255 F.3d 478, 481 (8th Cir. 2001) (federal civil rights statutes do not “deputize anyone seeking to exercise a right thereunder” for removal purposes). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
