FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

June 7, 2005

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BERNICE ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TULSA PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendant-Appellee.	No. 04-5153
(D.C. No. CV-04-661-EA(C))
(N. D. Okla.)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before EBEL, McKAY and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

	Plaintiff‑Appellant Bernice Alexander, proceeding pro se, appeals
 the district court’s decision denying Alexander’s attempt to remove her state‑court action to federal court.  (R. doc. 4.)  Although ordinarily “[a]n order remanding a case to the state court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise,” this court has jurisdiction to review this remand order because Alexander appears to have sought to remove her state‑court action under 28 U.S.C. § 1443.  28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also First Union Mortgage Corp. v. Smith, 229 F.3d 992, 994 (10th Cir. 2000).  “We review de novo a district court’s determination of the propriety of removal.”  Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 1284, 1289 (10th Cir. 2001).  
	The district court correctly determined that Alexander cannot remove her own state‑court action to federal court.  See Hamilton v. Aetna Life and Cas. Co., 5 F.3d 642, 643, 644 (2d Cir. 1993); Ballard’s Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Transue, 865 F.2d 447, 449 (1st Cir. 1989); Oregon Egg Producers v. Andrew, 458 F.2d 382, 383 (9th Cir. 1972).  See generally Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 103, 104‑07 (1941) (addressing earlier removal statute, discussing history of removal, and concluding earlier removal statute permitted only defendants to remove state actions to federal courts).  We, therefore, AFFIRM the district court’s decision to deny removal. 

						ENTERED FOR THE COURT

						David M. Ebel
						Circuit Judge