United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 4, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-41501
Summary Calendar
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW COMMITTEE,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELIJAH W. RATCLIFF,
Defendant - Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division
USDC No. 9:06-CV-171
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellee, Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee (“UPLC”),
filed suit in Texas state court pursuant to Texas Government Code
§ 81.101, alleging that Appellant, Elijah Ratcliff, has engaged in
a pattern of conduct constituting the unauthorized practice of law.
Ratcliff sought removal to the United States District court for the
Eastern District of Texas. The district court determined there had
been no showing of federal jurisdiction and therefore ordered the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
case to be remanded back to the state court. Ratcliff appeals the
order to remand.
In its ruling, the district court determined that Ratcliff had
not established diverse citizenship of the parties, nor had he
established the requisite amount in controversy. In addition, the
district court noted, “[t]he pleadings in this case . . . do not
reveal any federal law conferring jurisdiction upon this Court to
consider the asserted claims. [UPLC] seeks relief exclusively
pursuant to a State law and no counterclaim has been filed.”
We do not have jurisdiction to review an order to remand based
on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless the case was
removed under the civil rights statute 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Charter
Sch. of Pine Grove, Inc. v. St. Helena Parish Sch. Bd., 417 F.3d
444, 446 (5th Cir. 2005); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Ratcliff has not
made the requisite showing that this case was properly removed
pursuant to § 1443. See Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219-
220 (1975) (discussing the two-prong test under § 1443(1)); see
also City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824 (1966)
(determining § 1443(2) gives a privilege of removal only to federal
officers and agents).
Therefore, pursuant to § 1447(d), we lack jurisdiction to
review the order to remand.
The appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.