Lind v. Ne. Ohio Corr. Ctr.
Decision Date | 27 January 2022 |
Docket Number | 4:21CV2165 |
Parties | DANIEL A. LIND, Plaintiff, v. NORTHEAST OHIO CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. ECF No. 5. Defendants responded in opposition. ECF No 7. The Court has reviewed the parties' filings and the applicable law. For the reasons stated below Plaintiff's motion is denied.
The above-captioned case was removed from the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas.[1] ECF No. 1. Plaintiff seeks a remand because the complaint “contains no federal claims, none of the Defendants are federal agents or agencies, and there are no claims that any of the Defendants are federal contractors or even take any direction from any federal agent or agency.” ECF No. 5 at PageID #: 63. Defendants oppose remand because Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. “is a federal contractor providing detention services to the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) pursuant to a contract” with the United States Department of Justice (“USDOJ”), and removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442. ECF No. 7 at PageID #: 102.
Under the federal officer removal statute, a defendant in a state court action can remove the matter to federal district court if the cause of action arises out of actions taken at the direction of the federal government. See Mays v. City of Flint, Mich., 871 F.3d 437, 441 (6th Cir. 2017).
The statute provides:
28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). For the case to be removed, Defendants must show that “(1) it is a person who acted under the direction of a federal officer; (2) the actions for which it is being sued were performed under the color of federal office, and (3) there is a colorable federal defense to the plaintiff's claims.” In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig., 327 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1069-70 (N.D. Ohio 2018) (citing Bennett v. MIS Corp., 607 F.3d 1076, 1085 (6th Cir. 2010)).
Defendants can satisfy the first prong by demonstrating that “‘the relationship between the contractor and the Government is an unusually close one involving detailed regulation, monitoring, or supervision.'” In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig., 327 F.Supp. at 1076 (citing Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 551 U.S. 142, 153 (2007)). In this case, Defendants meet this standard because of their contract with the USDOJ ECF No. 7 at PageID #: 103. Defendants are required to meet standards set and closely monitored by the federal government. See Bennett, 607 F.3d at 1088 ( ).
Defendants are also required to establish “some causal nexus between the plaintiff's claims and the private party's actions committed under the direction of the federal government.” In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig., 327 F.Supp. at 1076 (citing Watson, 551 U.S. at 148). Defendants satisfy the second prong because one of the primary obligations of their contract with USDOJ was to provide medical services, which Plaintiff alleges were inadequate. Bennett, 607 F.3d at 1088 ( ).
The final prong presents “a low bar and merely requires that the defendant's assertion is both ‘defensive' and ‘based in federal law.'” In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig., 327 F.Supp. at 1077 (quoting Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 129 (1989)). Defendants meet the third prong because their defense to Plaintiff's allegations is that the medical care standards, set by the federal government, were indeed met. In re Welding Rod Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 1:03-CV-17000, 2004 WL 1179454, at *12 (N.D. Ohio May 21, 2004) (quoting Little v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 227 F.Supp.2d 838, 861 (S.D. Ohio 2002)) (a defendant is “operating under the terms of a federal contract, and thus the operative contractual commands of federal officials”) that a colorable federal defense is raised when .
To continue reading
Request your trial