McBride v. Harrell et al

Filing 3

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,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLIFFORD L. HARRELL and
CAROLYN D. HARRELL,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:12cv147-MHT
(WO)

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.

Specifically, she

asserts that, among other things, the trial judge has
neglected to rule on a number of her motions, the state-

court

system

notification

has
of

failed

court

to

dates,

provide
and

the

her

adequate

county

clerk’s

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
removed
by
the
defendant
or
the
defendants, to the district court of the
United States for the district and
division embracing the place where such
action is pending.”
(Emphasis added).

The Supreme Court has cautioned that

this statute should be strictly construed.

Shamrock Oil

& Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941).

Given

that admonishment and the express and unambiguous terms
of

the

statute

itself,

it
2

is

unsurprising

that

the

Eleventh

Circuit

Court

of

Appeals

has

stated

that

§ 1441(a) authorizes defendants only, and not plaintiffs,
to remove a suit to federal court.
85-1,

Ltd.,

22

Consequently,

F.3d

even

1070,

1072

assuming

that

See FDIC v. S & I
(11th
this

Cir.

1994).

court

had

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
state court.

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
her

state-law

claims

in

state

court.

“Removal

jurisdiction is not an avenue for federal review of

3

state-court actions.”

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.
The

clerk

of

the

court

is

DIRECTED

to

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

take