Elliott v. Pulaski County Special School District et al

Filing 12

ORDER granting 5 Plaintiff June Elliott's Motion to Remand. Accordingly, this case is remanded back to the state court and no action is taken on the motions to amend 11 and for substitution of counsel 9 because this court lacks jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 9/8/11. (hph)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
JUNE ELLIOTT
v.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 4:11CV00537 BSM

PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT and CHARLES HOPSON

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff June Elliott moves for remand [Doc. No. 5] and to amend the complaint
[Doc. No. 11], and defendant Charles Hopson moves to substitute counsel [Doc. No. 9]. The
motion to remand is granted and no action is taken on the motions to amend and for
substitution of counsel because this court lacks jurisdiction to act on those motions.
On June 9, 2011, Elliot filed a complaint in state court alleging sex discrimination
under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 (ACRA) and retaliation under the ACRA and
Arkansas Whistleblower Protection Act. [Doc. No. 2]. Based on a single reference to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 in Elliott’s prayer for relief, defendants removed the case to federal court.
[Doc. No. 1].
Elliott now moves to amend the complaint to add claims for illegal exaction,
constructive discharge, and intimidation pursuant to the ACRA and to strike the language in
the complaint referring to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [Doc. No. 11] and to remand because the
reference to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the prayer for relief was a typographical error [Doc. No.
5]. Defendants object asserting that a federal question exists.

Elliott’s motion for remand is granted because no federal question exists. To establish
federal question subject matter jurisdiction, Elliott’s claim must arise under the Constitution,
laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. If at any time before a final judgment,
it appears that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c). Furthermore, all doubts are to be resolved in favor of remand. Dahl v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 478 F.3d 965, 968 (8th Cir. 2007). It is clear that Elliott’s inclusion
of the reference to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was a typographical error and the she intended to bring
this claim under the ACRA.
Accordingly, this case is remanded back to the state court and no action is taken on
the motions to amend [Doc. No. 11] and for substitution of counsel [Doc. No. 9] because this
court lacks jurisdiction..
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of September 2011.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2