Frederick v. Florida Department of Corrections et al

Filing 14

ORDER sua sponte remanding case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). The Clerk shall remand the case to the DeSoto County Circuit Court, transmit a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of that Court, and close the file. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 11/13/2012. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JAMES L. FREDERICK,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.

2:12-cv-325-FtM-29DNF

FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT
OF
CORRECTIONS,
GLORIA
IVINES,
Educational Supervisor, MANUAEL
MARTINEZ,
JR.,
Correctional
Officer,
and
RANDALL
SMITH,
Educational Teacher,
Defendants.
________________________________
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon periodic review of the
file and Defendants’ Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause
(Doc. #13, Response).

On June 18, 2012, Defendants removed the

above-captioned action from the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court,
DeSoto County, to this Court.

See Notice of Removal (Doc. #1).

Upon review, the Magistrate Judge, finding the averred basis of
jurisdiction deficient, issued a Show Cause Order (Doc. #9),
directing Defendants to show cause why this action should not be
remanded back to the State Court.

Upon review of the file and the

Response and based upon controlling law, the Court will remand this
action back to the State Court.
Removal jurisdiction exists only where the district court
would have had original jurisdiction over the action, unless
Congress expressly provides otherwise. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Darden

v. Ford Consumer Fin. Co., Inc., 200 F.3d 753, 755 (11th Cir.
2000).

Here, Defendants seek removal based upon 28 U.S.C. §

1441(a) and § 1331.

Notice of Removal at 1, ¶1.

A cause of action

“arises under” federal law pursuant to § 1331 only when plaintiff’s
well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.
We have long held that “[t]he presence or absence of
federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘wellpleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal
jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is
presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded
complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,
392 (1987); see also Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v.
Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)
Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 474-75 (1998).

“A

removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal
jurisdiction.”

Adventure Outdoors, Inc. V. Bloomberg, 552 F. 3d

1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2008)(quoting Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car,
279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002)).

To determine whether removal

is proper, the Court looks to the well-pled allegations of the
Complaint at the time of removal to determine whether the case
arises under federal law.

Id.

“As a general rule, a case arises

under federal law only if it is federal law that creates the cause
of action.” Diaz v. Sheppard, 85 F.3d 1502, 1505 (11th Cir. 1996).
In fact, the “mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of
action

does

jurisdiction.”

not

automatically

confer

Id. (internal citations omitted).

federal-question
Because removal

jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns, federal courts
are directed to construe removal statutes strictly.
-2-

See Shamrock

Oil

&

Gas

Corp.

Consequently,

any

v.

Sheets,

doubts

as

313
to

U.S.

100,

whether

108-09

federal

(1941).

jurisdiction

properly lies should be resolved in favor of remand to the state
court.

Adventure Outdoors, Inc., 552 F.3d at 1294; see also

University of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410-11
(11th Cir. 1999).
At the outset, Plaintiff did not file a “Complaint” in state
court.1

Instead, Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled “Motion for

Declaratory Judgement” (Doc. #2, “Pleading”).

No federal question

appears on the face of the Pleading and the Pleading is devoid of
any citation or reference to any federal authority, including 42
U.S.C. § 1983.

See generally Pleading.

Indeed, after removal,

Defendants filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement” (Doc. #7)
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), claiming they were “unable to
frame an appropriate response or denial at this time” to the
Pleading.

Motion at 2, ¶6.

Consequently, the Court does not find

that the Pleading establishes a federal question under the “well
pleaded complaint rule.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. at
392.
basis

To the extent that Defendants required clarification of the
of

Plaintiff’s

action,

Defendants

should

have

sought

clarification in the state court, not after removal from this
Court.

1

An action is commenced in federal court by the filing of a
complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 3.
-3-

To the extent discernable, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that
he has a protected interest in his employment as a certified law
clerk with
entitled

the

to

position.

due

Department

of

process

prior

See generally id.

Corrections;
to

being

such

that,

terminated

he

was

from

the

Admittedly Plaintiff states that he

is “challenging the constitutionality of [the officials’]” actions
for not adhering to the dictates of “Chapter
9.

33-501.301.”

Id. at

However, considering the totality of the pleading, the Court

construes the reference to the Florida constitution and not the
United States Constitution.

Especially, because whether Plaintiff

has a property interest in his employment or his position as a
certified law clerk is “defined by existing rules or understandings
that stem from an independent source, such as state law,” not
federal law.

McRae v. Douglas, 644 So.2d 1368, 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA

1994)(internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Depaola
v. Town of Davie, 872 So.2d 377, 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this case is sua sponte

remanded to state court.
2.

The Clerk is directed to remand the case to the Circuit

Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, in and for DeSoto County,
Florida, and to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the
Clerk of that Court.

-4-

3.

The Clerk is further directed to close this case and

terminate all previously scheduled deadlines and pending motions as
moot.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, on this
of November, 2012.

SA: hmk
Copies: All Parties of Record

-5-

13th

day