# Wheatley

> District Court, N.D. Ohio · December 15, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11225331

## Case

- **Full name:** Tiffany Wheatley v. Mahoning County Clerk of Courts
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** December 15, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11225331

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

TIFFANY WHEATLEY, ) CASENO. 1:25 CV 1843
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
)
MAHONING COUNTY CLERK )
OF COURTS, )
) MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant. ) AND ORDER

Tiffany Wheatley, acting pro se, initiated this action on September 4, 2025, by filing a
document titled “Case Initiating Notice of Removal.” (Doc. No. 1). The Notice included a
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas case number, CV-25-118392, but the Notice fails to
include any state court pleadings. It appears that Ms. Wheatley is attempting to remove her own
lawsuit from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. (/d.). In that case, Ms. Wheatley and
her daughter, Aubriellen Wheatley, filed claims against the Mahoning County Clerk of Courts
and Judge Anthony D’Apolito concerning Ms. Wheatley’s criminal matter pending in Mahoning
County Court of Common Pleas. See Wheatley v. Mahoning County Clerk of Courts, No. CV-25-
118392 (Cuy. Cnty. C.P. filed May 28, 2025). Upon review, the Court finds that the state action
has not been properly removed.

A defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a state court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts have
original jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or that
involve parties of diverse citizenship and exceed $75,000 in controversy, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The party seeking removal bears the burden of demonstrating that the district court has original
jurisdiction. Williamson y. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 481 F.3d 369, 375 (6th Cir. 2007). And “because
lack of jurisdiction would make any decree in the case void and the continuation of the litigation
in federal court futile, the removal statute should be strictly construed and all doubts resolved in
favor of remand.” Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 549-50 (6th Cir. 2006)
(alteration in original) (quoting Brown v. Francis, 75 F.3d 860, 864-65, 33 V.I. 385 (3d Cir.
1996)).
As an initial matter, Ms. Wheatley is not a defendant in the state court case. The removal
statutes clearly provide that only a defendant may remove a state civil action to federal court.
Shophar v. Kan. Dep’t of Children & Families, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11980, *5 (6™ Cir. 2019)
(citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 (a), 1443, 1446(a)).
Additionally, to remove a civil action from state court to federal court, the following
pleading requirements must be met: (1) the defendant or defendants must file in the district court
a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, along with a copy of all
pleadings and orders served upon the defendant or defendants; and (2) the notice of removal must
be filed within 30 days of receiving the complaint or summons, whichever period is shorter, or
within 30 days of receiving an amended pleading, motion, order, or “other paper” from which the

-2-

removability of the action may first be ascertained. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) and (b).
Here, the only removal document filed in this case is Ms. Wheatley’s Case Initiating
Notice of Removal that contains arguments purportedly in support of removal and a form
complaint noting “See Notice of Removal.” (See Doc. Nos. 1; 1-1 ). Ms. Wheatley has failed to
file any pleadings from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Case No. CV-25-
118392).
Accordingly, because this state action has not been properly removed from the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas, it is not necessary to remand the matter to state court. The Court
therefore dismisses this action. And the Court denies as moot all pending motions. (Doc. Nos. 2,
4, 8).
Further, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this
decision may not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
DATED: Netmdr [2, L645

Be

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11225331. Public record. Not legal advice.