Payne v. Park

Filing 25

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 4 Motion to Remand. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 5/6/2011) (mfw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MARCUS J. PAYNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADAM PARK, individually and in his
official capacity as Lieutenant of TXDPS–
Private Security Bureau,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-497-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff originally filed this case in state court on January 31, 2011 (doc. 1-4). Defendant
thereafter removed the suite to federal court on March 9th, alleging that this Court had federal
question jurisdiction over the case because Plaintiff’s Complaint implicated issues of federal law.
(Notice of Removal 2). On March 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Objection to Removal and Motion
to Remand Case to State Court (doc. 4), contending that removal was improper because the parties
are not diverse in citizenship and because Plaintiff had elected to withdraw all federal claims against
Defendant in his Amended Complaint. (See generally Pl.’s Mot. Remand). Defendant responded
(doc. 11) that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does in fact still implicate questions of federal law
because he bases his right to recovery, in part, on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See generally Def.’s Resp.).
A defendant may remove an action filed in state court to federal court if the case could have
originally been filed in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject matter jurisdiction is
limited; federal courts may entertain only those cases involving a question of federal law or those
where parties are of diverse citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1332. Defendant does not contend
-1-

that removal is proper based on diversity jurisdiction. Instead, he contends that Plaintiff both
initially and to this day alleges claims that arise, at least in part, under federal law. The Court agrees.
Including his Petition in State Court, Plaintiff has now filed three versions of his Complaint against
Defendant. In each iteration of his claims, Plaintiff asserts entitlement to relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Section 1983 provides a framework for a plaintiff to recover against individual state actors
for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights. See D.A. ex. rel. Latasha A. v. Hous. Indep.
Sch. Dist., 629 F.3d 450, 456 (5th Cir. 2010). Despite Plaintiff’s claims that he has dropped all
federal claims against Defendant, he clearly has not. (See Pl.’s 3d Am. Compl. ¶ 1 (“This action is
commenced under section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
under Federal Civil Rights statute 42 U.S.C. §[] 1983 . . . .”)). Accordingly, the Court finds that it
does have federal question jurisdiction over the instant case, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
DATED May 6, 2011

_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-