R. Stark Ligon, Jr. v. Teresa Bloodman, No. 19-1618 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Stras, Wollman and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - civil procedure. Order remanding Bloodman's disbarment proceeding to state court affirmed; Bloodman failed to show that she will be denied or cannot enforce her federal rights in the state court proceedings.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1618 ___________________________ R. Stark Ligon, Jr., as Executive Director of the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Teresa Lynette Bloodman, Attorney at Law, ABN 2005055 lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: December 16, 2019 Filed: December 18, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before STRAS, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Teresa Bloodman appeals the district court’s1 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. Ganon, 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. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -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.
