AMH 2014-1 Borrower, LLC ISAOA v. Catherine Smith, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12168
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
AMH 2014-1 BORROWER, LLC ISAOA,
c/o O’Kelley & Sorohan, Attorneys at
Law, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CATHERINE SMITH,
DWIGHT SMITH,
BRYANT SMITH,
Defendants-Appellants.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12168 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 09/15/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12168
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00536-SEG
____________________
Before GRANT, A BUDU , and A NDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Smiths, proceeding pro se, seek review of the district
court’s order remanding this case back to the Magistrate Court of
Fulton County for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Generally,
remand orders are not appealable. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC
v. Hanover Ins. Co., 995 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2021). Section
1447(d) is specific on this matter: “[a]n order remanding a case to
the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on
appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also MSP Recovery
Claims, 995 F.3d at 1294. There are, however, two statutory
exceptions. A remand order is reviewable on appeal if “it was
removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
And removing a case “pursuant to” § 1442 or § 1443, for purposes
of establishing reviewability, “just means that a defendant’s notice
of removal must assert the case is removable in accordance with or
by reason of one of those provisions.” BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City
Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021) (quotation
omitted).
The Smiths, in their notice of removal, stated that they were
removing their case to federal court “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
USCA11 Case: 22-12168 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 09/15/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

22-12168 Opinion of the Court 3
1441, and 1446.” They did not remove this case “pursuant to
section 1442 or 1443.” See AMH 2014-1 Borrower, LLC ISAOA v.
Smith, No. 1:22-CV-0536-JPB-JSA, 2022 WL 2388711, at *5 (N.D.
Ga. Mar. 30, 2022) (“Defendants do not expressly seek to remove
this action based on 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).”), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 1:22-CV-0536-SEG, 2022 WL 2442807
(N.D. Ga. June 16, 2022). While we hold the allegations of pro se
litigants to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers,” we may not “serve as de facto counsel for a party” or
“rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an
action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th
Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the
district court’s remand order. We therefore GRANT AMH’s
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and DENY as moot
AMH’s motion to expedite this appeal.
USCA11 Case: 22-12168 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 09/15/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --