Martin v. Fort Wayne Police Department et al
Filing
17
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 11 MOTION to Remand. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 11/8/2011. (kjm)
United States District Court
Northern District of Indiana
ANTHONY C. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORT WAYNE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
OFFICER 1794, OFFICER 14967, and
TWO UNKNOWN OFFICERS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-351 JVB
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Anthony Martin’s motion for remand
(DE 11).
A.
Background
This action originated with Plaintiff’s complaint filed in Allen Superior Court on
February 22, 2011. However, Defendants were not served with the summons and complaint
until around September 28, 2011.1 Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that on February 17, 2011,
Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching him and his vehicle without
probable cause and using excessive force. He also raises state law claims, including defamation
and intentional infliction of emotional distress, relating to the same incident.
Defendants filed their notice of removal on October 6, 2011, explaining that removal is
proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.2 On October 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed this motion for
remand, arguing that the Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and
1
No proof of service has been filed. Defendants assert that they were served on September 28, 2011, and
Plaintiff does not challenge the assertion.
2
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1446 sets out the procedure for removing a case to federal court. Plaintiff does not argue
that Defendants did not follow the proper procedure.
that by removing his suit to federal court Defendants are forum shopping.3
B.
Applicable Law
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1441 sets out what cases may be removed to federal court:
(a)
Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil
action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United
States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or
defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and
division embracing the place where such action is pending. . . .
(b)
Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction
founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties, or laws
of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship
or residence of the parties.
Accordingly, if some other statute confers federal court jurisdiction over an action that is
filed in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 governs federal question jurisdiction:
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
Title 28 § 1367 provides for supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims:
(a)
C.
Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided
otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts
have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have 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.
Discussion
3
He also mentions diversity issues but failed to develop any argument regarding such issues. Indeed, to do
so would be pointless because Defendants do not claim that this Court’s jurisdiction rests on diversity of citizenship.
2
The complaint Plaintiff filed in Allen Superior Court presents federal claims arising
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, making them
federal questions. Thus Plaintiff could have filed his suit in this Court originally under 28
U.S.C. § 1331. Moreover, because his state law claims arise out of the same incident as the
federal claims, Plaintiff’s encounter with Fort Wayne police officers on February 17, 2011, they
are so closely related to the federal claims that they form a part of the same controversy. Since
they accompany closely related federal claims, the state claims too could have been brought in
this Court originally under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Because this District Court would have had
original jurisdiction over both the federal and state claims, the case was properly removed from
state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. While Plaintiff may consider this forum shopping, it is forum
shopping that is expressly authorized by federal law. As Defendants explained in their response
to his motion, Plaintiff’s federal claims will be decided under federal law while the laws of the
state of Indiana will apply to his state law claims.
D.
Conclusion
Plaintiff has presented no grounds for remand of this case to state court. Plaintiff’s
motion for remand (DE 11) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on November 8, 2011.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
United States District Judge
Hammond Division
3
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?