Brandon James Sales v. Social Security Administration

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 2/22/2017 GRANTING 5 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSING action without prejudice. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Brandon James Sales) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BRANDON JAMES SALES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-CV-110-JPS

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

ORDER

On January 24, 2017, the defendant removed this action from
Milwaukee County Circuit Court. (Docket #1). That same day, it filed a
motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. (Docket #5). The plaintiff’s
response to the motion was due on or before February 14, 2017. See Civil L.
R. 7(b). Today is February 22, 2017, and the Court has yet to receive the
plaintiff’s response. It will, therefore, treat the defendant’s motion as
unopposed.
This alone would be ground enough to grant the motion, see Civil L.
R. 7(d), but defendant’s motion has merit in any event. The United States
Supreme Court holds that “‘jurisdiction of the federal court upon removal is,
in a limited sense, a derivative jurisdiction.’” Edwards v. U.S. Dept. of Justice,
43 F.3d 312, 316 (7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S.
382, 389 (1939)). Thus, “‘[w]here the state court lacks jurisdiction of the
subject matter or of the parties, the federal court acquires none [upon
removal], although in a like suit originally brought in federal court it would
have had jurisdiction.’” Id.
The doctrine applies to the plaintiff’s claim. The entirety of the
plaintiff’s allegations against the defendant are “for useing [sic] S/S/W

number to buy properties[.]” (Docket #1-1 at 2). Generously construed, this
appears to be a claim for damages pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2671-80. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of such claims.
Id. § 1346. Milwaukee County Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to hear the
claim when the plaintiff filed it there, and so this action must be dismissed for
want of subject matter jurisdiction.1
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket #5)
be and the same is hereby GRANTED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby
DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 22nd day of February, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

1

The defendant neither cites nor grapples with the complexities of the
doctrine as discussed in Rodas v. Seidlin, 656 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court has
nevertheless reviewed the decision and finds that it does not change the result
here. In short, the issues may remain as posed by the defendant because this matter
is at its earliest stages and not reduced to judgment. See id. at 622-25.

Page 2 of 2