(caption unavailable)

*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 93-8326
Summary Calendar
__________________
ALVIS LEE BROOKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF TEXAS ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-93-CV-49
- - - - - - - - - -
(January 7, 1994)
Before DUHE’, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alvis Lee Brooks filed a civil rights action in the 167th
District Court of Travis County, Texas. After the Supreme Court
of Texas dismissed Brooks' appeal of a trial court ruling on a
venue motion, Brooks removed the case to the federal district
court. Because the federal removal statute only permits removal
by defendants, the magistrate judge concluded that the case had
been improvidently removed and recommended that the case be
remanded because the district court lacked jurisdiction. After
conducting a de novo review, the district court adopted the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 93-8326
-2-
reasoning of the magistrate judge and remanded the case to the
state district court.
"This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on
its own motion, if necessary." Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659,
660 (5th Cir. 1987). The appealability vel non of a remand order
based on the district court's conclusion that it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff had no right of
removal is a complicated matter which we do not reach because the
appeal can and should be dismissed as frivolous.
"[O]nly a defendant, never a plaintiff, may remove a civil
action from state to federal court . . . ." McKenzie v. U.S.,
678 F.2d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 1982) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and
Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 61 S. Ct. 868,
85 L. Ed 1214 (1941)). The district court properly remanded the
action. This appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See
5th Cir. R. 42.2.

-- 2 of 2 --