Johnson v. Gailius et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, denying 6 MOTION to Remand filed by Anthony Johnson. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 11/17/2014. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTHONY JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-cv-1022-JPG-SCW

CHIEF NICK GAILIUS, CITY OF
FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, OFFICER
BRANDON STRICKLAND, OFFICER
DREW RITTER, OFFICER DURT SCHUTZ
and OFFICER JEFFREY BLAIR,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Anthony Johnson’s motion to remand this
case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois (Doc. 6).
The defendants have responded to the motion (Doc. 7).
Johnson originally filed this case in state court alleging a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 as well as various state law and state constitutional provisions. Spotting a federal question
presented by the cause of action under § 1983, the defendants removed this case to federal court.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Johnson now asks the Court to remand the case to state court on the
grounds that the state court has jurisdiction to decide federal questions under § 1983, that it would
be more efficient to litigate in St. Clair County, and that the defendants would not be harmed by a
remand. In response, the defendants argue that jurisdiction is proper before this Court as well as
before the state court and that the case should remain in this forum.
The defendants are correct that this Court has jurisdiction to hear this case. A defendant
may remove to federal court a case filed in state court if the federal court would have had original
jurisdiction to hear a claim in the case when the plaintiff originally filed it. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a);

Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 758 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court would have
had original jurisdiction to hear this case when Johnson originally filed it because it contains a
federal question, namely, a cause of action arising under § 1983, and related causes of action. See
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) & 1367(a) (supplemental jurisdiction).
Furthermore, the defendants have a statutory right to remove a case if it satisfies the requirements
of 28 U.S.C. § 1441. This is true even if the state court has concurrent jurisdiction over the case
or it would be more convenient to try the case in state court. See, e.g., Floeter v. C.W. Transp.,
Inc., 597 F.2d 1100, 1102 (7th Cir. 1979).
The defendants in this case have exercised their statutory right to remove this case, and the
plaintiff has not pointed to any substantive or procedural defect in that removal. Therefore, there
is no basis for remand to state court. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to
remand (Doc. 6).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 17, 2014
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2