dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction where “the question of removal jurisdiction was the heart of the decision in the district court, and the district court had to examine the plausibility of the federal defense in making its ruling to remand for lack of removal jurisdiction”
How later courts described this case
- dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction where “the question of removal jurisdiction was the heart of the decision in the district court, and the district court had to examine the plausibility of the federal defense in making its ruling to remand for lack of removal jurisdiction”
- noting that “federal officer” remand order was not appealable even though the district court had to “examine and discuss the federal defense”
- discussing the difference between “colorable” and “valid” with respect to a federal defense serving as a basis for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442
- where question of removal jurisdiction was the heart of the decision, fact that district court had to examine plausibility of federal defense did not confer jurisdiction upon the court of appeals
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judge,
concurring in part with the dissent.
I concur in that portion of Judge Kennedy’s opinion which deals with the jurisdictional issue. I am not in agreement, however, with that portion of the opinion that concludes “the District Court was correct in holding that Wright was acting under the direction of federal officials when he allegedly disobeyed Judge Kessler’s order to deposit the $12,000 which had been turned over to the DEA.” I do not believe that Wright was acting as a federal officer, nor do I believe that he is entitled to any federal official immunity defense.