noting that “Congress has not seen fit to amend the general removal statute to allow such plaintiffs to remove.”
How later courts described this case
- noting that “Congress has not seen fit to amend the general removal statute to allow such plaintiffs to remove.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DANA BROWN, B45793, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
) Case No. 23-cv-4041-DWD
LATOYA HUGHES, )
DANIEL MONTI, )
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., )
SALLY MILLAR, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Dana Brown’s Complaint (Doc.
1), which he originally filed in state court, but subsequently removed to this Court on
December 27, 2023. In support of his removal, Plaintiff avers that he originally filed this
action in Clinton County Circuit Court on June 7, 2023, but he has experienced
“inordinate delays” that have rendered those proceedings useless. Plaintiff’s underlying
complaint concerns issues that arose at Centralia Correctional Center related to his need
for medical care. While a suit of this nature could be presented in Federal Court at the
outset, a Plaintiff cannot remove his own case to Federal Court after first filing in state
court.
Under § 1441, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts
of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the
defendants” 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (emphasis added). While Plaintiff could have originally
brought his civil rights claim under § 1983 in federal court, he instead chose to pursue the
suit in state court. Courts have continually recognized that when a plaintiff submits
himself to the jurisdiction of state courts, he is not entitled to the right of removal, which
is only conferred upon defendants. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100,
106 (1941); Tri-State Water Treatment, Inc. v. Bauer, 845 F.3d 350, 357 (7th Cir. 2017) (noting
that “Congress has not seen fit to amend the general removal statute to allow such
plaintiffs to remove.”).
Accordingly, this action will now be REMANDED to state court. Plaintiff’s
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), and his Motion for Service of Process at
government Expense (Doc. 3) are DENIED as MOOT. The filing fee in this case is
WAIVED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2024
/s David W. Dugan
_________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge