United States v. Todd, 00-1431

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
• Citation: 245 F.3d 691
• Docket Number: No. 00-1431,00-1431
• Parties: (8th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. MICHAEL TODD, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, ARKANSAS STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND DAVID D. STILLS, APPELLEES. Submitted:
• Decision Date: 12 January 2001

Page 691

245 F.3d 691 (8th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
MICHAEL TODD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS, ARKANSAS STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND DAVID D. STILLS, APPELLEES. No. 00-1431 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Submitted: January 12, 2001
Filed: April 3, 2001

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Page 692

Before Beam and Morris Sheppard Arnold, Circuit Judges, and Doty,¹ District Judge.

Morris Sheppard Arnold, Circuit Judge.

Michael Todd was a defendant in a federal criminal case when he filed a lawsuit in state court, pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act of 1967, see Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-101 through 25-19-107, to compel the Arkansas State Police to release some files in its possession. The files related to investigations into alleged criminal activities by Mr. Todd, and because they belonged to the United States, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas intervened as a defendant in the state case under Ark. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Shortly thereafter, the United States removed the case from state court to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). Once the case reached federal court, Mr. Todd requested but was denied a remand to state court. The district court ² subsequently dismissed Mr. Todd's lawsuit on the merits.

On appeal, Mr. Todd does not challenge the dismissal of his case. Instead, he argues,

Page 693

first, that the removal of the case from state court to federal court was improper and, second, that the removed case should have been randomly assigned in the federal court. We disagree and affirm the order of the district court.

I.

Mr. Todd maintains that the removal of his case to federal court was improper because he did not sue any federal defendant or rely on any federal law in his complaint. We review the district court's exercise of removal jurisdiction and denial of a motion to remand de novo. See Krispin v. May Department Stores Co., 218 F.3d 919, 922 (8th Cir. 2000); see also County of St. Charles, Missouri v. Missouri Family Health Council, 107 F.3d 682, 684 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 859 (1997).

The removal statute applicable to federal officers and federal agencies, see 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1), allows the removal of any civil or criminal case against "any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, sued ... for any act under color of such office." Because this statute establishes an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, we reject Mr. Todd's contention that the removal was improper in this case simply because his original complaint had a non- federal cast. See Jefferson County, Alabama v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 431 (1999). The right to removal "is made absolute whenever a suit in a state court is for any act 'under color' of federal office, regardless of whether the suit could originally have been brought in a federal court," Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 406 (1969).

To qualify for removal, a defendant must, among other things, raise "a 'colorable defense arising out of [the defendant's] duty...