Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Angeliina Lynn Lawson, Petitioner v. Jonathan David Lawson

Appellate Case: 25-3097

Document: 59-1

Date Filed: 12/11/2025

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Page. 1

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 11, 2025

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

JONATHAN DAVID LAWSON,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANGELIINA LYNN LAWSON,

No. 25-3097

(D.C. No. 5:25-CV-04045-JWB-TJJ)

(D. Kan.)

Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before CARSON, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Angeliina Lynn Lawson1 unsuccessfully tried to remove Kansas

state-court custody proceedings to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). That

provision permits removal when the petitioner “is denied or cannot enforce in the

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1 We construe Ms. Lawson’s pleadings liberally in light of her pro se status,

but we will not construct a legal theory on her behalf. See Whitney v. New Mexico,

113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).

Appellate Case: 25-3097

Document: 59-1

Date Filed: 12/11/2025

Page: 2

courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of

citizens of the United States.” Ms. Lawson invoked § 1443(1) on the ground that

Kansas state courts are violating her rights under Title II of the Americans with

Disabilities Act. She says those rights are, or should be, “civil rights” within the

meaning of § 1443(1). Controlling precedent says otherwise.

The Supreme Court has clearly stated that a petitioner seeking removal under

§ 1443(1) must allege claims that “arise[] under a federal law providing for specific

civil rights stated in terms of racial equality.” Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213,

219 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). We reiterated this principle in Miller

v. Lambeth, 443 F.3d 757, 761-62 (10th Cir. 2006). Ms. Lawson’s claims have

nothing to do with racial equality, so the district court correctly concluded it lacked

subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded her case to state court. Exercising

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm for the same reasons set forth in the

district court’s well-reasoned order entered on May 30, 2025. In so doing, we reject

Ms. Lawson’s additional argument that the district court should have addressed her

jury-trial demand and her pending motions to compel state-court action. It would

have been inappropriate for the district court to do so given the lack of jurisdiction.

All pending motions are denied.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

2

Case 5:25-cv-04045-JWB-TJJ

Document 22

Filed 05/30/25

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JONATHAN DAVID LAWSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 25-4045-JWB

ANGELIINA LYNN LAWSON,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Angeliina Lawson’s objection (Doc. 17) to Magistrate

Judge Teresa James’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 16) recommending dismissal

or remand of this action. After review, the court ADOPTS the R&R and remands this action.

I.

Facts and Procedural History

On May 2, 2025, Defendant Lawson filed a notice of removal in this court. The notice

states that Defendant is removing a state court family law matter (Case No. 2020-DM-131)

“involving enforcement of child support and maintenance arrears.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) Defendant

asserts that this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §^443(1) because her civil rights are being

denied in state court. Specifically, Defendant contends that she is being denied the right to self­

representation, the right to due process, and the right to reasonable accommodations under the

Americans with Disabilities Act. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Defendant also cites to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

states that her civil rights have been violated.

Defendant requests that this court “assume jurisdiction” over this matter, stay the state

court action, declare that Defendant has been denied her federally protected rights, and order

further proceedings. (Doc. 1 at 4.)

Case 5:25-cv-04045-JWB-TJJ

Document 22

Filed 05/30/25

Page 2 of 3

Magistrate Judge James entered an R&R recommending dismissal or remand to state court

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant has filed an objection.

II.

Standard

On a dispositive matter the district judge “must determine de novo any part of the

magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A

failure to properly object, however, leaves a party with no entitlement to appellate review, and

allows the district court to review the R&R under any standard it deems appropriate. See Williams

v. United States, No. 19-2476-JAR-JPO, 2019 WL 6167514, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 20, 2019) (citing

United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996)) (“The Tenth

Circuit requires that objections to a magistrate judge's recommended disposition ‘be both timely

and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court...’”).

Because Defendant is proceeding pro se, the court is to liberally construe her filings. United

States v. Pinson, 585 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009). However, liberally construing filings does

not mean supplying additional factual allegations or constructing a legal theory on her behalf.

Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).

III.

Analysis

Magistrate Judge James determined that removal of this action was improper because this

court would not have original jurisdiction of this matter and § 1443(1) is inapplicable. The court

agrees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove a state court action to federal court

when the case “originally could have been filed in federal court.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482

U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This court does not have original jurisdiction over family law matters. Hunt

v. Lamb, 427 F.3d 725, 727 (10th Cir. 2005). Therefore, removal was improper under 1441(a).

2

Case 5:25-cv-04045-JWB-TJJ

Document 22

Filed 05/30/25

Page 3 of 3

Further, as stated by Magistrate Judge James, a defense or counterclaim based on federal law also

does not provide a basis for this court’s jurisdiction. Hunt, 427 F.3d at 727.

Plaintiff also asserted that removal was proper under § 1443(1). That statute “allows

removal to address the violation of a right to racial equality that is unenforceable in state court.”

Hunt, 427 F.3d at 727 (citing Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 (1966)). Plaintiffs notice of

removal does not assert that a right to racial equality has been violated. Therefore, she cannot

remove the state court action under this statute. Plaintiffs assertion in her objection that § 1443(1)

has been expanded to encompass other civil rights is incorrect. See Marsee v. Serpik, No. 23-6106,

2023 WL 9529229, at *1 (10th Cir. Aug. 31, 2023) (stating the same standard for removal under

§ 1443(1)).

Therefore, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

IV.

Conclusion

Based on the reasons herein, the court ADOPTS the R&R and remands this matter to the

Anderson County District Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 29th day of May 2025.

s/ John Broomes

JOHN W. BROOMES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 5:25-cv-04045-JWB-TJJ

Document 16

Filed 05/15/25

Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JONATHAN DAVID LAWSON,

Petitioner,

v.

ANGELIINA LYNN LAWSON,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:25-cv-04045-JWB-TJJ

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Respondent Angeliina Lynn Lawson filed a notice of removal from Anderson County

District Court on May 2,2025 (Doc. 1), and subsequently filed a corrected notice of removal (Doc.

6) on May 6, 2025. Respondent attempts to remove an underlying state court family law matter

involving enforcement of child support and maintenance arrears and child custody issues. This

action is before the Court on Respondent Angeliina Lynn Lawson’s Motion for Leave to Proceed

Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 4).

I.

Respondent’s Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees

Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows the court to authorize the

commencement of a civil action “without prepayment of fees of security therefor, by a person who

submits an affidavit... [if] the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.”1 To

succeed on a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the movant must show a financial inability to

1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Case 5:25-cv-04045-JWB-TJJ

Document 16

Filed 05/15/25

Page 2 of 7

pay the required filing fees. The decision to grant or deny in forma pauperis status under § 1915

lies within the “wide discretion” of the trial court.2

Based on the information contained in her application, Respondent has shown the inability

to pay the required filing fee to institute a civil action.3

The Court will therefore grant

Respondent’s request to proceed without the prepayment of fees.

II.

Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915

When a party seeks to proceed without the prepayment of fees, § 1915 requires the court

to screen the party’s complaint. The court must dismiss the complaint if it determines that the

action (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

(3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from suit. The purpose of § 1915(e) is

to “discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits

that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit and because of

the threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious suits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1I.”4

This Court reviews the sufficiency of the pleadings under the same standards as those used

when considering a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).5 The complaint “must allege

sufficient facts to state a claim which is plausible—more than merely conceivable—on its face.”6

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) a complaint must provide a “short and plain statement of the

claims showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Additionally, the complaint must state more

than “labels and conclusions” and “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

2 Lister v. Dept. ofTreas., 408 F.3d 1309, 1313 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners,

Inc.,'iMY3A 1305, 1306-07 (11th Cir. 2004)).

3 See Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, ECF No. 4.

4 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).

5 Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217-18 (10th Cir. 2007).

6 Fisherv. Lynch, 531 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1260 (D. Kan. Jan. 22, 2008) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

2

Case 5:25-cv-04045-JWB-TJJ

Document 16

Filed 05/15/25

Page 3 of 7

beyond the speculative level.”7 Respondent proceeds pro se, thus her pleadings must be construed

liberally.8 However, she still bears the burden to allege “sufficient facts on which a recognized

legal claim could be based”9 and the Court cannot “take on the responsibility of serving as [her]

attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.”10

“Apart from the court’s obligation to screen IFP complaints for merit, the court has an

independent obligation to determine if subject-matter jurisdiction exists.”11 “[F]ederal courts are

courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction” and “may only hear cases when empowered to do so

by the Constitution and by act of Congress.”12 Further, “A complaint is frivolous within the

meaning of § 1915(d), if its subject matter is outside the jurisdiction of the court.”13

A. Removal in this Case Is Improper

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a party in a state court civil action may remove that action to

federal court. However, “an action may be removed from state court to federal court only if a

federal district court would have original jurisdiction over the claim in suit.”14 “This jurisdictional

prerequisite to removal is an absolute, non-waivable requirement.”15 A party seeking removal

bears the burden of satisfying the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The face of the complaint

must “demonstrate that subject-matter jurisdiction exists either based on diversity of the parties

7 BellAtl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 545.

8 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).

9 Id.

10 Mays v. Wyandotte Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 2010 WL 6032763, at *2 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Garrett v.

Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005)).

11 Martinez v. Pickering, No. 21-4083-JAR-ADM, 2021 WL 12146947, at *2 (D. Kan. Dec. 8, 2021),

report and recommendation adopted, No. 21-4083-JAR-ADM, 2022 WL 21778539 (D. Kan. Feb. 28,

2022) (citing Gadv. Kan. State Univ., 787 F.3d 1032, 1035 (10th Cir. 2015)).

n Gad, 787 F.3d at 1035.

13 Oltremari by McDaniel v. Kan. Social & Rehabilitative Serv., 871 F. Supp. 1331, 1333 (D. Kan. 1994).

14 Jefferson Cnty, Ala. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 430 (1999).

15 Hunt v. Lamb, 427 F.3d 725, 726 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Brown v. Francis, 75 F.3d 860, 864 (3d Cir.

1996)).

3

Case 5:25-cv-04045-JWB-TJJ

Document 16

Filed 05/15/25

Page 4 of 7

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or based on a federal question presented by the claim under 28 U.S.C. §

1331.”16

1. Diversity Jurisdiction Is Not Established

Respondent does not allege facts to establish diversity jurisdiction. Respondent does not

allege the residency of the Petitioner, and therefore she cannot facially show the Court has

jurisdiction based on diversity of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.17 Further, Respondent

is a resident of the State of Kansas. And, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) bars home-state removal, as an

action is not removable on the basis of diversity if any defendant “is a citizen of the State in which

the action is brought.”18

2. Federal Question Jurisdiction Is Not Established

Notwithstanding Respondent’s claims of error by the state court judge, no basis for federal

question jurisdiction is established for removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Though Respondent

vaguely raises Americans with Disabilities (“ADA”) and constitutional claims in her notice of

removal, this court must decline to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of federal question, as the

underlying case is a domestic relations case involving enforcement of child support, maintenance

arrears, and child custody issues.19

16 Martinez v. Pickering, 2021 WL 12146947, at *2.

17 Richmond v. Original Juan and Spicin Foods, No. 21-2500-DDC-TJJ, 2022 WL 103290, at *2 (D. Kan.

Jan. 11, 2022) (finding the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction when Plaintiff failed to allege the

parties’ citizenship).

18 See NYMTLoan Financing Trust v. Cummings, No. 19-cv-2582-KHV, 2020 WL 290951, at *2 (D.

Kan. Jan. 21, 2020) (finding removal improper on the basis of diversity jurisdiction when defendant is a

Kansas resident attempting to remove case from state court to the District of Kansas).

19 See Watson v. State, No. 15-9930-JAR-JPO, 2016 WL 1359868, at *4 (D. Kan. Apr. 6, 2016), aff'd,

668 F. App’x 840 (10th Cir. 2016) (“Although the domestic relations exception is generally considered an

exception to diversity jurisdiction, it may also be applied in federal question cases.”).

4

Case 5:25-cv-04045-JWB-TJJ

Document 16

Filed 05/15/25

Page 5 of 7

It is well established that “the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife,

parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not the laws of the United States.”20 Courts

have set forth many policy reasons for such a domestic-relations exception in federal court,

including that states have a strong interest in domestic relations and have the expertise and

capabilities to settle domestic disputes.21 Such cases “serve no particular federal interest,” and

often require ongoing judicial intervention for which federal courts are not suited.22 Accordingly,

federal courts cannot ‘“reopen, reissue, correct, or modify’ an order in a domestic relations case.”23

Here, Respondent asks the Court to do exactly that.24 However, allowing removal of Respondent’s

domestic relations case would require this Court to make determinations of child custody, support,

and maintenance that are regularly and appropriately decided in state court, and “lie outside federal

jurisdictional bounds.”25 Additionally, to the extent Respondent seeks removal to vindicate her

civil and constitutional rights in the state court action, dismissal or remand is still required because

“a case may not be removed to federal court solely because of a defense or counterclaim arising

20 Escalante v. Burmaster, No. 23-3195-JWL, 2023 WL 5275117, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 16, 2023) (quoting

Chapman v. Oklahoma, 472 F.3d 747, 749-50 (10th Cir. 2006)).

21 Vaughn v. Smithson, 883 F.2d 63, 65 (10th Cir. 1989).

22 Id.

23 Alfaro v. Cnty ofArapahoe, 766 F. App’x 657, 659 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Leathers v. Leathers, 856

F.3d 729, 756 (10th Cir. 2017)).

24 Corrected Notice of Removal, ECF No. 6, pg. 3 (requesting the court assume jurisdiction over the state

court case).

25 Redickv. KVC Behavioral Healthcare, Inc., No. 19-3129-SAC, 2020 WL 1271929, at *1 (D. Kan. Mar.

17, 2020) (quoting Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 308 (2006)); See Watson, 2016 WL 1359868, at

*4 (finding the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction when adjudicating defendants’ federal

claims would also require the federal court to make child support determinations).

5

Case 5:25-cv-04045-JWB-TJJ

Document 16

Filed 05/15/25

Page 6 of 7

under federal law.”26 Therefore, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the matter on the basis

of federal question, or otherwise.27

The Court also rejects Respondent’s contention that the notice of removal “is filed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), which allows removal of state cases where a person is denied or cannot

enforce their civil rights in the courts of such State.”28 “The United States Supreme Court has

established a two part test for section 1443 removal petitions.”29 As applied to Respondent’s notice

of removal, it must appear (1) that the right allegedly denied Respondent arises under a federal law

providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality, and (2) that Respondent has

been denied or cannot enforce her specified rights in Kansas State court.30 Respondent’s notice of

removal acknowledges that the specific civil rights Respondent alleges she was denied arise under

the ADA for disability discrimination, not under a federal law providing for specific civil rights

stated in terms of racial equality.31 Thus, Respondent fails the section 1443 test; she cannot remove

this case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).

Because it is clear that Respondent has alleged no facts to support either diversity or federal

question jurisdiction the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, and the undersigned U.S.

Magistrate Judge recommends this matter be DISMISSED or REMANDED to the District Court

of Anderson County, Kansas for further proceedings.

26 Topeka Housing Auth. v. Johnson, 404 F.3d 1245, 1247 (10th Cir. 2005); Emrit v. Jules, No. 23-CV2305-JAR-TJJ, 2023 WL 486490 (D. Kan. July 31, 2023) (recommending dismissal of constitutional and

Title VII claims associated with a domestic relations issue when the court lacked subject-matter

jurisdiction).

27 See Jefferson Cnty, Ala. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 430 (1999) (“an action may be removed from state

court to federal court only if a federal district court would have original jurisdiction over the claim in

suit.”)

28 Corrected Notice of Removal, ECF No. 6, p. 1.

29 Akhlaghi v. Berry, 294 F. Supp. 2d 1238, at 1241-42 (D. Kan. 2003).

30 Id. (quoting State of Colorado v. Lopez, 919 F.2d 131, 132 (10th Cir. 1990)) (internal quotations

omitted).

31 Corrected Notice of Removal, ECF No. 6, p. 2.

6

Case 5:25-cv-04045-JWB-TJJ

Document 16

Filed 05/15/25

Page 7 of 7

Respondent is hereby informed that, within 14 days after she is served with a copy of this

report and recommendation, she may, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72,

file written objections to the report and recommendation. Respondent must file any objections

within the 14-day period allowed if she wants to have appellate review of the recommended

disposition. If Respondent does not timely file her objections, no court will allow appellate review.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 4) is granted, but the Court withholds service of process pending

District Judge Broomes’s § 1915 review.

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be mailed to Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated May 15, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.

U. S. Magistrate Judge

7

Additional material

from this filing is

available in the

Clerk's Office.