CHATMAN v. HANCOCK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al

Filing 6

ORDER DENYING 5 Motion to Remand. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 10/15/2013. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
STEPHAINE Y. CHATMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
HANCOCK COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, ANNIE INGRAM, DENISE
RANSOM, PAMELA LAWRENCEINGRAM, ANTHONY GILCHRIST,
AZALEE WILLIAMS-ASKEW,
GWENDOLYN JEFFERSON REEVES,
DefendantS.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-375 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s motion to remand. (Doc. 5). The Plaintiff filed
this lawsuit in the Superior Court of Hancock County. (Doc. 1-1; Doc. 1-2; Doc. 1-5).
On October 1, 2013, the Defendants timely removed the case to this Court. (Doc. 1).
“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United
States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the…defendants, to the district
court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such
action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The district courts have original jurisdiction of
all civil actions arising under federal laws or the federal constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Additionally, if a federal district court has original jurisdiction over a claim it can typically
exercise “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in
the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Among the Plaintiff’s claims are alleged violations of Title VI and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d, 2000e et seq., as well as her due process
rights under the United States Constitution. Thus, there is a clear basis for this Court to
exercise federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Moreover, as best
the Court can determine from the Plaintiff’s pleadings, her state law claims are part of
the same case or controversy as her federal claims. That permits the Court to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The
Plaintiff argues the case should not have been removed because she filed it in state
court and the state courts also have original jurisdiction over her claims. Perhaps this is
true. But because she chose to sue the Defendants for violating federal law, the
Defendants have the right to a federal forum, and they have exercised that right. The
Plaintiff’s motion is without merit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of October, 2013.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-