O'Grady, Michael v. Carlson, Tersa et al

Filing 18

ORDER that defendants Teresa L. Carlson and James L. Santelle may have until October 17, 2012, to show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 10/10/2012. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MICHAEL O’GRADY,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
12-cv-388-bbc
v.
TERESA L. CARLSON, JAMES L. SANTELLE,
JANE KOHLWEY, SCOTT CORBETT,
JAMES ROY HABECK. SUSAN PFEIFFER,
KRISTINE RANDAL and
MARATHON COUNTY CHILD
SUPPORT/TITLE IV-D AGENCY,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Defendants Teresa L. Carlson and James L. Santelle removed this case from the
Circuit Court for Columbia County, Wisconsin under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which
authorizes removal of a case filed against federal officers “relating to any act under color of
such office.” A limitation of the statute is that the officer must show that he has a federal
defense to the plaintiff’s claims against him. Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 129 (1989).
In this case, plaintiff Michael O’Grady alleges that defendant Santelle (an assistant
United States attorney) and defendant Carlson (an agent of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation) failed in their duty to prevent defendant James Habeck “from retaliating and
inflicting injury upon Plaintiff for exercising [his] right in federal and state court to enforce
his court order rights.” Cpt. ¶ 31, dkt. #1-2. Although many of plaintiff’s allegations are

1

difficult to understand, his claim against the two federal officers seems to be that their offices
imposed on them a duty to protect him from the allegedly erroneous rulings of a state court
judge, defendant Habeck. That claim is obviously frivolous, but that does not necessarily
mean it was properly removed. A potential problem with the notice of removal is that
Santelle and Carlson do not identify a federal defense to plaintiff’s claim against them.
Accordingly, I will give those two defendants an opportunity to file a supplemental notice
in which they explain why they believe they satisfy the requirements of § 1442(a)(1) or
another removal provision.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that defendants Teresa L. Carlson and James L. Santelle may have
until October 17, 2012, to show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Entered this 10th day of October, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

2