State of Wisconsin v. McReynolds-El, Hajji

Filing 2

ORDER that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for Eau Claire County, Wisconsin. The clerk of court is directed to return the record to the state court. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 4/4/2014. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

V.

l 4-cv-238-wmc
HAJJI YAMIN! McREYNOLDS-EL,
Defendant.

The State of Wisconsin originally filed this action on February 3, 2014, in the
Circuit Court for Eau Claire County, Wisconsin, alleging that defendant violated Wis.
Stat.§ 343.44(l)(a) by operating a vehicle while suspended. See State v. McReynolds, Eau
Claire County Case No. 2014TR727.

Alleging that the State lacks jurisdiction to

prosecute him and that the proceedings constitute "official oppression," defendant
removed the case to this court. A review of the pleadings and defendant's notice of
removal, however, establishes that the removal was improperly filed. Accordingly, this
case will be summarily remanded to state court.

OPINION
As a general matter, the removal of actions from state court is authorized by 28
U.S.C. § 1441 (a). A case may be subject to remand for lack o~ subject matter jurisdiction
or on the

basi~

of any defect or failure to comply with the removal statutes. 28 U.S.C. §§

1446, 1447(c); Northern Ill. Gas Co. v. Airco Indus. Gases, 676 F.2d 270, 273 (7th Cir.
1982). The removal is defective in this instance because defendant has failed to comply

with 28 U.S.C. § l 446(b ), which requires that the notice of removal of a state court civil
action or proceeding must be filed "within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant,
through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
The exhibits reflect that defendant was served with a citation for operating after
suspension on January 28, 2014. That date triggered the 30-day removal period found in
§ 1446(b), see Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 354 (1999),

making his March 28, 2014 removal untimely.
More importantly, even if the removal was timely

file~defendant

does not

establish that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying dispute.
Unlike state courts, which have subject matter jurisdiction over a broad assortment of
causes and claims, the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited only to "cases or
controversies" that are "authorized by Article III of the [United States] Constitution and
the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto." Buchel-Ruegsegger v. Buchel, 576 F.3d
451, 453 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534,
541 (1986)). In other words, "[a] federal court is the wrong forum when there is no case
or controversy, or when Congress has not authorized it to resolve a particular kind of
dispute." Morrison v. YTB Intern., Inc., 649 F.3d 533, 536 (7th Cir. 2011) (explaining
that "subject-matter jurisdiction is a synonym for adjudicatory competence").
Generally, a federal court such as this one has the authority to hear two types of
cases: ( 1) cases in which a plaintiff alleges a cognizable violation of his rights under the
Constitution or federal law; and (2) cases in which a citizen of one state alleges a
violation of his or her rights established under state law by a citizen of one state alleges a
2

violation of his or her rights established under state law by a citizen of another state
where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-32. Assuming
that all of defendant's allegations are true, this case falls into neither category.
The notice of removal establishes that defendant resides in Wisconsin, meaning
that there is no diversity of citizenship. In addition, the underlying dispute concerns a
violation of state law, Wis. Stat. § 343.44(l)(a). It follows that the case presents no
legitimate federal question. Even if defendant were asserting a federal constitutional or
statutory right as a defense or counter-claim in that lawsuit, it is not enough to create
federal jurisdiction over the State of Wisconsin's original lawsuit. Absent a valid basis for
jurisdiction, the action must be remanded to state court.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for Eau
Claire County, Wisconsin. The clerk of court is directed to return the record to the state
court.
Entered this 4th day of April, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Isl
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3