Voog v. Pallito et al

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER: Because removal by a state court plaintiff is not authorizedby the federal removal statute, Voog's 1 Petition to remove is DENIED, this action is REMANDED to the state courts, and the case is CLOSED. Signed by Senior Judge J. Garvan Murtha on 5/5/2011. (wjf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
Matthew Voog,
Plaintiff,
v.
Andrew Pallito, John P.
Wesley, David Sontag,
Erica Marthage, Christina
Rainville, Robert Plunket,
Michael Munson, Matthew
Harnett,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

File No. 1:11-cv-00094-jgm

OPINION AND ORDER
(Doc. 1)
Plaintiff Matthew Voog, proceeding pro se, has filed a
petition to remove four separate matters from the state courts
under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Voog claims he has been denied various

federal rights and has “exhausted all administrative and
available state court remedies, or remedies have been rendered
unavailable by actions of the court and state.”

(Doc. 1 at 1.)

Based upon Voog’s statement of his claims, it appears he is the
plaintiff in each of the state court cases, and now seeks to
remove those cases and consolidate them in this Court.

As set

forth below, a plaintiff in a state court action may not remove a
case to federal court.

Voog’s petition is therefore DENIED, and

this case is REMANDED to the state courts.
The federal removal statute provides that “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 the defendants, to the district court of the United
States for the district . . . where such action is pending.”

28

U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (providing for
removal of civil rights cases “by the defendant”); 28 U.S.C. §
1446(a) (providing procedure for removal by “defendants desiring
to remove any civil action or criminal prosecution”).
the statute “provides for removal by a plaintiff.”

No part of

Hamilton v.

Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 5 F.3d 642, 643 (2d Cir. 1993), cert.
denied, 510 U.S. 1130 (1994); see also Yonkers Racing Corp. v.
City of Yonkers, 858 F.2d 855, 863 (2d Cir. 1988) (“Quite simply,
a party who is in the position of a plaintiff cannot remove.”);
Geiger v. Arctco Enters., Inc., 910 F. Supp. 130, 131 (S.D.N.Y.
1996) (“It is clear beyond peradventure of a doubt that the right
of removal is vested exclusively in defendants.

A plaintiff

simply may not remove an action from a state court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1446(a)”).
Because removal by a state court plaintiff is not authorized
by the federal removal statute, Voog’s petition to remove (Doc.
1) is DENIED, this action is REMANDED to the state courts, and
the case is CLOSED.
Dated at Brattleboro, in the District of Vermont, this 5th
day of May, 2011.
/s/ J. Garvan Murtha
Honorable J. Garvan Murtha
Senior United States District Judge
2