Vann v. Ebbs, et al. – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal because the district court's remand order was based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which bars appellate review under Section one thousand four hundred forty-seven of Title twenty-eight of the United States Code.
Standard: 28-U.S.C.-1447d
Vote: Unanimous panel decision dismissing the appeal without oral argument.
Practical effect: The dismissal reinforces the strict bar on appellate review of remand orders based on subject matter jurisdiction, preventing parties from appealing such orders even when they argue for federal officer removal.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed an appeal challenging a district court order remanding a probate dispute to state court. The appellate panel held that it lacked jurisdiction because the remand was based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Background

Tony Lamar Vann originally sued Vieana Ebbs in Oklahoma state court to contest a will. He attempted to remove the case to federal court twice. The district court remanded the first attempt sua sponte for lack of federal jurisdiction. On the second attempt, Vann added a state court judge as a defendant and argued for removal under the federal officer removal statute. The district court again remanded the case, noting that state court judges are not federal officials.

The court’s reasoning

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court’s remand order was based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Under Section one thousand four hundred forty-seven of Title twenty-eight of the United States Code, orders remanding cases to state court are not reviewable on appeal unless the remand was pursuant to specific statutes not applicable here. The district court concluded that state court judges are not federal officials, a determination that touches on subject matter jurisdiction and bars appellate review.

Nonetheless, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal and therefore dismiss it.

Vann v. Ebbs, et al., No. 26-5048 (10th Cir. July 6, 2026)

What it means going forward

The dismissal reinforces the strict bar on appellate review of remand orders based on subject matter jurisdiction, preventing parties from appealing such orders even when they argue for federal officer removal.