Steele v. Menards Home Improvement Store et al
Filing
25
OPINION AND ORDER granting 7 Motion to Remand. This case is REMANDED to the Elkhart Circuit Court, Cause No. 20C01-1103-PL-007. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 9/7/11. (cc: Clerk, Elkhart Circuit Court) (ksc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
SHAUN L. STEELE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MENARDS HOME IMPROVEMENT
STORE and GLADYS FIELDS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 3:11-CV-152
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Objection to Transfer
and Request to Remand Back to the Circuit Court of Elkhart (DE# 7),
filed by Shaun L. Steele, a pro se prisoner, on May 5, 2011. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) GRANTS the motion to
remand (DE# 7); and (2) REMANDS this case to the Elkhart Circuit
Court, Cause #20C01-1103-PL-007.
BACKGROUND
The facts underlying this case were fully set forth in the
Court’s May 27, 2011, order and will be only briefly recounted
here. (DE# 14 at 1-3.) On March 23, 2011, Shaun L. Steele, a pro se
prisoner, filed this action in Elkhart Circuit Court against
Menards
Home
employees,
Improvement
Gladys
Fields
Store
(“Menards”)
(“Fields”).
(DE#
and
1.)
one
Steele
of
its
raises
malicious prosecution and other state law claims against the
defendants based on the fact that they caused criminal charges to
be initiated against him for passing a bad check. (Id.) The
defendants timely removed the case (DE# 2), and Steele moves to
remand. (DE# 7.)
In
the
prior
order,
this
Court
determined
that
federal
question jurisdiction is lacking. (DE# 14 at 4-5.) The only
remaining question is whether diversity jurisdiction exists under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. (DE# 2.) To that end, the Court granted Steele an
opportunity to submit an affidavit regarding his citizenship (see
DE# 14 at 9-11), and he has now submitted that affidavit. (DE# 23.)
DISCUSSION
When a plaintiff files suit in state court but could have
invoked
the
original
jurisdiction
of
the
federal
court,
the
defendant may remove the action to federal court. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a); Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc., 577 F.3d 752,
758 (7th Cir. 2009). The defendant bears the burden of establishing
federal subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court must interpret
the removal statute narrowly, resolving any doubt in favor of the
plaintiff’s choice of forum in state court. Schur, 577 F.3d at 758.
Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity
among the parties and the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). As explained in the prior order, if Steele is a
citizen of Indiana, the parties are not diverse and the case must
2
be remanded. (See DE# 14 at 5-12.) Steele is presently incarcerated
in an Indiana prison; however, “incarceration in a state does not
make one a citizen of a state.” Bontkowski v. Smith, 305 F.3d 757,
763 (7th Cir. 2002). Rather, “[a] prisoner is a citizen of the
state of which he was a citizen before he was sent to prison unless
he plans to live elsewhere when he gets out, in which event it
should be that state.” Id.
In his affidavit, Steele attests that he has lived in Indiana
since 1998. (DE# 23, Steele Aff. ¶ 4.) He further attests that he
was incarcerated on his present offense on July 6, 2010, and was
living in Indiana at that time. (Id.) He further attests that upon
his release he intends to continue living in Indiana. (Id.)
Pursuant to Bontkowski, Steele has demonstrated that he is a
citizen of Indiana.
The defendants assert that Steele’s affidavit is deficient
because it does not set forth his criminal history in detail. (DE#
20.) However, Steele has provided the information necessary to
determine
his
citizenship
under
the
standard
set
forth
in
Bontkowski. The defendants further assert that at the time the
underlying criminal charges were initiated in 2007, Steele was in
possession of a Michigan drivers license. (Id.) Steele explains
that he was previously a resident of Michigan, and in 2007 he
unsuccessfully sought to have his parole transferred to that state;
however, he attests that he has not lived in that state since 1998
3
and has no intention of returning there. (DE# 23, Steele Aff. ¶ 4.)
Rather, as stated above, he attests that he lived in Indiana up to
the time he was incarcerated on the present offense, which predated
the filing of his complaint, and that he intends to live in Indiana
after his release from prison. (Id.) The defendants have not
rebutted these statements, and it is their burden to demonstrate
that the requirements of federal subject matter jurisdiction are
met. Schur, 577 F.3d at 758.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that Steele is a
citizen of Indiana. Because Fields is also a citizen of Indiana,1
complete diversity does not exist. Therefore, the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over this case and it must be remanded.
As a final matter, the Court previously stayed this case
pending resolution of the jurisdictional issue. (DE# 14 at 2.)
There were motions pending at that time unrelated to the issue of
subject matter jurisdiction, and notwithstanding the stay the
parties
continued
to
file
motions
unrelated
to
the
Court’s
jurisdiction. (See DE# 10, 13, 16, 21.) Because the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, it has no authority to rule on these
motions. The Court leaves to the state court in the first instance
whether and to what extent these motions should be granted.
1
The Court determined in the prior order that Fields is a proper party to
this lawsuit. (See DE# 14 at 5-9.)
4
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court:
(1)
GRANTS the motion to remand (DE# 7); and
(2)
REMANDS this case to the Elkhart Circuit Court, Cause
#20C01-1103-PL-007.
DATED:
September 7, 2011
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
5
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?