McBride v. Harrell et al
OPINION AND ORDER; it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that this case be remanded to the Circuit Court of Autauga County, Alabama, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). It is further ORDERED that all pending motions are left for res olution by the state court after remand. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take appropriate steps to effect the remand. This case is closed. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/22/2012. (jg, )Certified copy of order and docket sheet mailed to Circuit Clerk of Autauga County, Alabama
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
OCTAVIA C. MCBRIDE,
CLIFFORD L. HARRELL and
CAROLYN D. HARRELL,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Octavia C. McBride, proceeding pro se,
filed a notice of removal asserting federal-question
jurisdiction over her pending state-court lawsuit against
defendants Clifford L. Harrell and Carolyn D. Harrell.
For the reasons that follow, this case will be remanded
to state court.
According to McBride’s notice of removal, she has
suffered a variety of due-process violations during the
pendancy of this state-law action.
asserts that, among other things, the trial judge has
neglected to rule on a number of her motions, the state-
office shredded her original power-of-attorney document.
She filed a notice of removal with the hope that this
federal court would grant her the relief that the state
court has thus far refused to provide.
Subsection (a) of 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which governs the
removal of lawsuits from state to federal court, provides
in pertinent part as follows:
“Except as otherwise expressly provided
by Act of Congress, any civil action
brought in a State court of which the
district courts of the United States
have original jurisdiction, may be
defendants, to the district court of the
United States for the district and
division embracing the place where such
action is pending.”
The Supreme Court has cautioned that
this statute should be strictly construed.
& Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941).
that admonishment and the express and unambiguous terms
§ 1441(a) authorizes defendants only, and not plaintiffs,
to remove a suit to federal court.
See FDIC v. S & I
jurisdiction over McBride’s due-process claims if they
had been originally filed in federal court, this action
must be remanded because § 1441(a) does not grant her the
right to seek removal of a cause of action in which she
is the plaintiff.
Moreover, McBride’s arguments in favor of removal
reduce to a contention that she is being mistreated in
This mistreatment is not an independent
federal claim that might warrant removal, even by a
defendant, but rather is an argument that should be
presented to a state appellate court should she lose on
jurisdiction is not an avenue for federal review of
Pearson v. Commercial Bank of
Ozark, 2012 WL 72603, *2 (M.D. Ala. 2012) (Thompson, J.).
For the forgoing reasons, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT,
and DECREE of the court that this case be remanded to the
Circuit Court of Autauga County, Alabama, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4).
It is further ORDERED that all pending motions are
left for resolution by the state court after remand.
appropriate steps to effect the remand.
This case is closed.
DONE, this the 22nd day of February, 2012.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?