White v. City of Grandview
| Decision Date | 19 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16-4162-DDC-KGS |
| Parties | SANTINE M. WHITE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF GRANDVIEW PLAZA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Pro se plaintiff Santine M. White brings this civil rights action against defendants City of Grandview Plaza, Grandview Police Department, Lieutenant Shawn Peirano, and Officer Shawn Weeks. In short, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his constitutional rights and Kansas law during a traffic stop and arrest on April 27, 2010. Plaintiff filed this action in the District Court of Geary County, Kansas on September 30, 2016. Doc. 1-1. On October 19, 2016, defendants removed the action to this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, asserting that the federal court has original jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983—claims that arise under federal law.
This matter is before the court on several pending motions. First, plaintiff has filed a Motion to Remand. Doc. 8. The motion asks the court to remand the case to Geary County, Kansas. The court denies this motion as moot. Defendants properly removed the case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a), 1446. The court has original jurisdiction over plaintiff's federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim. But, plaintiff's federal claims fail to state a claim for relief, and the court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. So, the court remands the case to the District Court of Geary County, Kansas.
Second, defendants have filed a Motion to Strike. Doc. 17. This motion asks the court to strike a Statement of Claim that plaintiff has filed. Doc. 16. Defendants assert that this Statement of Claim is an Amended Complaint that plaintiff filed without written consent or leave from the court as Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) requires. The court agrees. The court thus grants defendants' Motion to Strike and strikes plaintiff's Statement of Claim.
Third, plaintiff has filed a Motion for Order. Doc. 19. This motion asks the court to supplement the record with certain information. Although the court refuses to consider this filing as an Amended Complaint because plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 15(a)(2), the court allows plaintiff to supplement the record with the information contained in Doc. 19. The court thus grants plaintiff's Motion for Order.
Fourth, plaintiff has filed a "Motion/Notice of a Constitutional Challenge of Statute." Doc. 20. This filing is difficult to understand but it appears that plaintiff is asking the court to intervene under 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) and that plaintiff seeks to challenge the constitutionality of a Kansas statute—Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2401a(2)(a). To the extent the court can construe this filing liberally as one seeking leave to file an amended complaint, the court denies the request because plaintiff has not complied with D. Kan. Rule 15.1(a)(2). But, even if plaintiff had complied with the local rule, the court would deny plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint because his purported constitutional challenge is futile.
Finally, defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 7. Defendants ask the court to dismiss plaintiff's Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For reasons explained below, the court concludes that plaintiff's federal claims fail to state a claim for relief and none of thefactual allegations in plaintiff's Statement of Claim, his Motion for Order, or his "Motion/Notice of a Constitutional Challenge of Statute"—even if pleaded as a properly Amended Complaint—would change that outcome. The court thus dismisses plaintiff's federal claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), but does so without prejudice. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claim.
Because plaintiff brings this lawsuit pro se, the court construes his filings liberally and holds them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). But the court does not assume the role of advocate for a pro se litigant. Id. Also, a litigant's pro se status does not excuse him from complying with the court's rules or facing the consequences of his noncompliance. Ogden v. San Juan Cty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994)).
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 30, 2016, in the District Court of Geary County, Kansas. Doc. 1-1 at 1. He used this court's federal form Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights. Id. And, he checked the box stating that he is bringing suit for violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 3. He attached an addendum to his Complaint asserting several bases for jurisdiction. Id. at 7. The addendum alleges violations of his rights under the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Id.
Defendants removed the case on October 19, 2016. Docs. 1, 14 at 2. On November 21, 2016, plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand in the District Court of Geary County, Kansas. Doc.14-4 at 1-2. Eight days later, plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand in federal court. Doc. 8. For reasons explained below, the court concludes that defendants properly removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a), and 1446.
A defendant may remove a civil action from state to federal court when the action is within the original jurisdiction of the federal courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases "arising under" the Constitution and laws of the United States, regardless of the amount in controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. "A case arises under federal law if its 'well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.'" Morris v. City of Hobart, 39 F.3d 1105, 1111 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). The governing federal removal statutes require a defendant to remove an action "within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
Here, defendants properly removed the case to federal court because plaintiff's Complaint asserts constitutional and federal statutory claims. Doc. 1-1 at 7, Doc. 1 at 1. Plaintiff alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, lists several amendments to the United States Constitution as bases for jurisdiction, and claims violations of his constitutional rights. Doc. 1-1at 7. Plaintiff's allegations arise under federal law because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a private right of action. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (). The court thus concludes that plaintiff's Complaint raises a federal question over which this court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The court also determines that defendants satisfied all procedural requirements for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Defendants filed their Notice of Removal on October 19, 2016, within the 30-day statutory deadline after plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 30, 2016. Doc. 1-1 at 1, Doc. 14 at 2.
When a plaintiff seeks remand to state court, the removing defendant bears the burden to demonstrate that removal was proper. Ruiz v. Farmers Ins. Co., 757 F. Supp. 1196, 1197 (D. Kan. 1991) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). A motion to remand a case "on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a)." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Here, plaintiff argues that courts must resolve any doubts about jurisdiction in favor of remand and evaluate notices of removal and motions to remand by construing factual allegations "'in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.'" Doc. 8 at 2 (quoting Crowe v. Coleman, 113 F.3d 1536, 1538 (11th Cir. 1997)). Even applying this standard to plaintiff's motion here, the courtconcludes that no such doubts exist about jurisdiction. Defendants have met their burden of showing that the removal satisfied substantive and procedural requirements and that they properly removed this case.
It is also unclear whether the governing federal statute required plaintiff to meet the 30-day deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Plaintiff filed his Motion to Remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(a), which authorizes federal district courts to "bring before it all proper parties" to determine whether removal was proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(a). Plaintiff does not assert any other statutory grounds for remand. Doc. 8 at 1-2. But, even assuming that plaintiff's Motion to Remand intended to assert that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, defendants have established that this court has original...
To continue reading
Request your trial