Lind v. Ne. Ohio Corr. Ctr.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
PartiesDANIEL A. LIND, Plaintiff, v. NORTHEAST OHIO CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al., Defendants.
Docket Number4:21CV2165
Decision Date27 January 2022

DANIEL A. LIND, Plaintiff,


No. 4:21CV2165

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

January 27, 2022



Benita Y. Pearson, United States District Judge

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.

I. Background

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.

II. Discussion

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:

(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending
(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue

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)).

A. Acting Under Direction of a Federal Officer

Defendants can satisfy the first prong by demonstrating that “‘the relationship between the contractor and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT