All County Cumberland v. Harris
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Russell G. Vineyard's Final Report and Recommendation 3 is ADOPTED. This action is REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 11/19/2014. (anc)
existence of a question of federal law. On April 17, 2014, Magistrate Judge
Vineyard issued his report and recommendation, finding that the dispossessory
action does not present a question of federal law, and concluding that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and that this case is required to be
remanded. On May 14, 2014, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation and remanded the action to the Magistrate Court of DeKalb
County.
On May 28, 2014, the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County entered its Order
and Judgment [2 at 5], which provides that Plaintiff is entitled to recover $4,935.00
and possession of the premises currently occupied by Defendant.
On June 5, 2014, Defendant, proceeding pro se, again removed the DeKalb
County Action to this Court by filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”), and the same Notice of Removal he filed in his previous action.
Defendant appears to assert that there is federal subject-matter jurisdiction based
on the existence of a question of federal law. He claims in his Notice of Removal
that “Respondent” violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “28
USC 1367” and “28 USC 1446(d),” and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
2
Amendment. He further claims that Plaintiff has “a legal duty to abort eviction
pursuant to O.C.G.A. [§] 51-1-6.” (Notice of Removal at 1-3).
On June 5, 2014, Magistrate Judge Vineyard granted Defendant’s
application to proceed IFP and considered sua sponte whether the Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over this action. He found that Plaintiff’s underlying
pleading shows that this is a dispossessory action, which does not present a federal
question. Noting that a federal law defense or counterclaim alone is not sufficient
to confer federal jurisdiction, Judge Vineyard concluded that the Court does not
have federal question jurisdiction over this matter. Because the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, he recommended that this case be remanded to state court.
There are no objections to the R&R.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams
v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A district judge
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
3
§ 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and recommendations to which a party
has not asserted objections, the Court must conduct a plain error review of the
record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
B.
Analysis
Defendant does not object to the R&R, and the Court does not find any error
in its conclusions. It is well-settled that federal-question jurisdiction exists only
when a federal question is presented on the face of a plaintiff’s well-pleaded
complaint and that the assertions of defenses or counterclaims based on federal law
cannot confer federal question jurisdiction over a cause of action. See Beneficial
Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003); Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air
Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830-32 (2002). Here, Plaintiff’s underlying
complaint is a dispossessory proceeding against Defendant, which is wholly based
on state law. Therefore, no federal question is present in the Complaint.
The Court also notes that the record does not show that Plaintiff and
Defendant are citizens of different states, or that the amount in controversy exceeds
the statutory threshold of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Fed. Home Loan
Mortg. Corp. v. Williams, Nos. 1:07-cv-2864-RWS, 1:07-cv-2865-RWS,
2008 WL 115096, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 29, 2008) (“[A] dispossessory proceeding
under Georgia law is not an ownership dispute, but rather only a dispute over the
4
limited right to possession. Title to property is not at issue and, accordingly, the
removing Defendant may not rely on the value of the property as a whole to satisfy
the amount in controversy requirement.”). The Court thus does not have diversity
jurisdiction over this matter.
Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this action is required to
be remanded to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before
final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the
case shall be remanded.”).2 The Court declines, at this time, to require Defendant
to post a bond before filing, or removing, any subsequent action.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Russell G. Vineyard’s
Final Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED. This action is
REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.
2
The Court also agrees with Judge Vineyard’s conclusion that, even if
subject-matter jurisdiction existed, the Court is unable to grant Defendant the relief
he seeks—review or reversal of the Order and Judgment—because federal courts
“generally lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision.” Doe v. Fla. Bar,
630 F.3d 1336, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462 (1983) & Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)); see
also Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) (federal district
courts cannot review, reverse or invalidate a final state court judgment because
“that task is reserved for state appellate courts or, as the last resort, the United
States Supreme Court.”).
5
SO ORDERED this 19th day of November, 2014.
_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?