At page 680 cited at this page1 citing case
- Ireland v. Simmons, No. 6:24-cv-00576 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2024).See Cooper v. City of Plano, 260 F. App’x 680, 680 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (affirming the district court’s remand order because a plaintiff may not remove an action from state court to federal district court).
Other citing cases
- Meley v. Mesa Airlines Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00397 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2021).
- Biegon v. City of Dallas, No. 22-10075 (5th Cir. Aug. 4, 2022).unpublished
v.
CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS; Thomas H. Muehlenbeck, City Manager; City of Plano Planning and Zoning Commission; City of Plano City Council; Cynthia O’Banner; Roxanne Luna; MacKlin Wright; City of Plano Property Standards Department, Defendants-Appellees
Jan Sandon Cooper appeals the district court’s remand order. The district court remanded because neither 28 U.S.C. § 1441 nor 42 U.S.C. § 1443 authorizes removal of a case to federal court by a plaintiff. A plaintiff may not remove an action from state court to federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also McKenzie v. United States, 678 F.2d 571, 574 (5th Cir.1982) (citing § 1441(a); Chicago, Rock Island & Peoria Railroad Co. v. Stude, 346 U.S. 574, 580, 74 S.Ct. 290, 98 L.Ed. 317 (1954); and Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941)). [1]
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
. See also Wright, Miller & Cooper, 14C, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 3d § 3731 at 251 ("The question of which parties may exercise the statutory right of removal has been answered by Congress. Section 1446(a) of Title 28 authorizes removal only by the state court defendants ... ”).