Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Devore
Filing
9
ORDER OF REMAND: Case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Effingham County, Illinois. The Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis by Defendant (Doc. 8 ) is TERMINATED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 1/27/2025. (jlpe).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COLETTE DAWN DEVORE a/k/a
COLETTE D. LOGSDON,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 24-CV-2650-SMY
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC filed a complaint to foreclose mortgage in the
Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Effingham County, Illinois (Doc. 4-1). Defendant
filed a Notice of Removal to this Court alleging that Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC violated
certain rights protected by the United States Constitution under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Doc. 1).
Pursuant to the Court’s obligation to raise sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction,
(Craig v. Ontario Corp., 543 F.3d 872, 875 (5th Cir. 2008)), and having reviewed the Notice of
Removal in this case (Doc. 1), the Court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction
because Defendant has not pled a proper federal claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Accordingly, this
matter is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Effingham County,
Illinois.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. As such, to proceed in federal court, a
party must establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, which is ordinarily
accomplished through federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction
Page 1 of 2
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 1 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff violated certain rights protected by the
United States Constitution under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1441 and 28 U.S.C. §1331.
Although Defendant asserts that Plaintiff violated her civil rights, her Notice of Removal
does not state a claim under federal civil rights laws. “To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he or she was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution
or the laws of the United States, and that this deprivation occurred at the hands of a person or
persons acting under the color of state law.” D.S. v. E. Porter Cty. Sch. Corp., 799 F.3d 793, 798
(7th Cir. 2015). The “state actor” predicate to § 1983 liability must be satisfied for a claim to
proceed. Here, Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, is a private loan servicing company, not a state
actor. Thus, Defendant has no relief available against it under § 1983; any claims she may have
against Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC are state law claims and do not trigger federal question
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction
because the Defendant has not pled a proper federal claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Court is
obligated, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) to REMAND the case back to the Circuit Court of the
Fourth Judicial Circuit, Effingham County, Illinois. All pending motions are TERMINATED AS
MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 27, 2025
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
1
Defendant does not invoke diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332.
Page 2 of 2
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?