Young v. BD. OF ED. OF FREMONT CTY. SCH. DIST., RE-3, Civ. A. No. 76-F-631.
| Court | United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado |
| Writing for the Court | Gerald A. Caplan, Boulder, Colo., for defendants |
| Citation | 416 F. Supp. 1139 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 76-F-631. |
| Decision Date | 23 July 1976 |
| Parties | Anne K. YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, RE-3, et al., Defendants. |
416 F. Supp. 1139
Anne K. YOUNG, Plaintiff,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, RE-3, et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 76-F-631.
United States District Court, D. Colorado.
July 23, 1976.
H. R. Harward, Canon City, Colo., for plaintiff.
Gerald A. Caplan, Boulder, Colo., for defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
FINESILVER, District Judge.
The issues presented are whether this action is subject to removal to federal court by virtue of Title 28, United States Code Section 1441(c); further, whether this case should be remanded to the State Court where the action was originally filed, i. e. the District Court in and For County of Fremont and State of Colorado.
We hold that objections to the Petition for Removal filed by the plaintiff are well taken and that the case should be remanded to the State Court.
I.
In May, 1976, the plaintiff, a non-tenured teacher in the defendant State School District, filed a civil action against all of the defendants in the County of Fremont, State of Colorado District Court, alleging two causes of action resulting from the defendants' refusal to renew the plaintiff's teaching contract for the 1976-77 year. Plaintiff's first cause of action seeks equitable relief from the Court in the form of an order directing contract renewal. The second cause of action seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, from the defendants for the alleged deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the Constitution in connection with the non-renewal of plaintiff's teaching contract.
On June 18, 1976, the defendants, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441, filed a Petition for Removal to this Court, together with a Removal Bond as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). In addition, a Notice of Filing of Petition for Removal and Removal Bond were sent to plaintiff's attorney and to the Clerk of the Fremont County District Court on June 18, 1976.
On June 22, 1976, defendants filed their answer that generally asserted denials of plaintiff's claims, and also asserted a sixth defense.
"The non-renewal of the Contract of Employment of the Plaintiff as a probationary teacher under the provisions of the Colorado Employment, Dismissal and Tenure Act of 1967, as amended, did not deprive the Plaintiff of any interest protected by the First, Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States."
On June 23, 1976, the plaintiff's attorney filed Objections to Petition for Removal in this Court.
II.
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 reads as follows:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceedings for redress.
Section 1983 actions can be brought in state courts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harradine v. Board of Sup'rs of Orleans County
...e. g., Di Antonio v. Pennsylvania State University, D.C., 455 F.Supp. 510; Young v. Board of Ed. of Fremont County School Dist., D.C., 416 F.Supp. 1139; Young v. Toia, supra; Cooper v. Morin, 50 A.D.2d 32, 375 N.Y.S.2d 928; Clark v. Bond Stores, 41 A.D.2d 620, 340 N.Y.S.2d...
-
California Republican Party v. Mercier, No. CV 86-6896 MRP.
...be able to choose either forum. This position has found some scattered support. Young v. Board of Education of Fremont School District, 416 F.Supp. 1139, 1141 (D.Colo.1976); Salveson v. Western States Bankcard Ass'n., 525 F.Supp. 566, 573 (N.D.Cal.1981) (dicta), rev'd in part, 731 F.2d 1423......
-
Gleichauf v. Ginsberg, Civ. A. No. 3:94-0481.
...and removal on the basis of federal question jurisdiction is precluded."); Young v. Board of Ed. of Fremont Cty. School Dist., RE-3, 416 F.Supp. 1139, 1142 (D.Col.1976) (federal forum need not exercise jurisdiction where state forum has equal responsibility for adjudicating federal...
-
Jackson v. Kurtz
...678, 213 N.W.2d 805. See, also, Long v. District of Columbia (C.A.D.C., 1972), 469 F.2d 927; Young v. Bd. of Edn. (D.Colo.1976), 416 F.Supp. 1139; International Prisoners' Union v. Rizzo (E.D.Pa.1973), 356 F.Supp. Plaintiff's allegations of inadequate notice and opportunity to defend and of......
-
Harradine v. Board of Sup'rs of Orleans County
...e. g., Di Antonio v. Pennsylvania State University, D.C., 455 F.Supp. 510; Young v. Board of Ed. of Fremont County School Dist., D.C., 416 F.Supp. 1139; Young v. Toia, supra; Cooper v. Morin, 50 A.D.2d 32, 375 N.Y.S.2d 928; Clark v. Bond Stores, 41 A.D.2d 620, 340 N.Y.S.2d...
-
California Republican Party v. Mercier, No. CV 86-6896 MRP.
...be able to choose either forum. This position has found some scattered support. Young v. Board of Education of Fremont School District, 416 F.Supp. 1139, 1141 (D.Colo.1976); Salveson v. Western States Bankcard Ass'n., 525 F.Supp. 566, 573 (N.D.Cal.1981) (dicta), rev'd in part, 731 F.2d 1423......
-
Gleichauf v. Ginsberg, Civ. A. No. 3:94-0481.
...and removal on the basis of federal question jurisdiction is precluded."); Young v. Board of Ed. of Fremont Cty. School Dist., RE-3, 416 F.Supp. 1139, 1142 (D.Col.1976) (federal forum need not exercise jurisdiction where state forum has equal responsibility for adjudicating federal...
-
Jackson v. Kurtz
...678, 213 N.W.2d 805. See, also, Long v. District of Columbia (C.A.D.C., 1972), 469 F.2d 927; Young v. Bd. of Edn. (D.Colo.1976), 416 F.Supp. 1139; International Prisoners' Union v. Rizzo (E.D.Pa.1973), 356 F.Supp. Plaintiff's allegations of inadequate notice and opportunity to defend and of......