United States District Court, D. Minnesota
CASSANDRA AND WESTON LANNERS, PRO SE.
R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE
matter came before the undersigned upon Plaintiff Cassandra
Lanners’ Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(“IFP”). [Docket No. 2]. For reasons outlined
below, the Court remands the case to state court, and denies
Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, [Docket No. 2] as
matter was initiated as Civil No. 19-CV-02578-JRT-HB on
September 23, 2019, when the Court received Plaintiff’s
Notice of Removal [Docket No. 1], a 4-page “removal for
cause” document [Docket No. 1-1], a 26-page
“affidavit” [Docket No. 1-2], two 100-page
collections of random documents [Docket Nos. 1-3, 1-4], and
an 83-page collection of random documents [Docket No. 1-5].
The Notice of Removal indicates that Plaintiffs’ would
like to remove No. 27-JV-19-1016 from Hennepin County
Juvenile Court. [Docket No. 1 at 1]. The removal is
“for cause: violation of due process” and alleges
that the Fifth and Seventh Amendments have been violated.
[Id. at 1]. Further, the “removal for
cause” document states “Defendants, having no
agreement with plaintiff, conspired under color of law in a
nisi prius de facto quasi court not of record proceeding
‘in equity’ and not at law and did willfully
injure, oppress, defraud and deprived plaintiff their
unalienable right of due process, secured by the Bill of
Rights, with the intent to proceed unlawfully carrying
plaintiff away to jurisdictions unknown.” [Docket No.
1-1 at 2-3]. Restitution of $1, 000 per defendant is
requested. [Id. at 4]. The 26-page affidavit is a
rambling narrative about events at Marriott hotels that do
not shed any light on why removal of this case was sought.
[Docket No. 1-2]. The additional collection of documents
provides no further explanation of why removal is sought to
documents are essentially duplicates of those filed earlier
this year in Lanners v. Minnesota et al., No.
19-CV-2000-PAM-SER. That case was remanded to Hennepin County
District Court because District Judge Paul Magnuson concluded
that the Court lacked jurisdiction. After reviewing the
filings in this case, as well as the filings in Case
19-CV-2000, this Court concludes that the same disposition is
appropriate. The case shall be remanded to Hennepin County
Notice of Removal is difficult, if not impossible, to follow.
Plaintiffs appear to allege before this Court that they are
defendants in another court, subject to harmful actions of
the Defendants named in this action. The Notice mentions the
Fifth and Seventh Amendments, but it does not give concrete
details about the nature of the Minnesota State Court
proceedings. Because the Minnesota case
number-27-JV-19-1016-is a juvenile case number, this Court
cannot access public records to determine who the parties are
to that case, or if there is still an action pending. The
exhibits do contain Juvenile Court Orders that indicate the
case is ongoing, with hearings set in late September. [Docket
No. 1-4 at 20]. The Notice does not make it clear why removal
Standard of Review
Congress has specified otherwise, “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, to the district court of the
United States for the district and division embracing the
place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a). “A defendant may remove a state court claim to
federal court only if the claim originally could have been
filed in federal court.” Gore v. Trans World
Airlines, 210 F.3d 944, 948 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)).
“Congress has long since decided that federal defenses
do not provide a basis for removal.”
Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 399. A defendant wishing to
remove a state court case to federal court must do so within
thirty (30) days after the defendant is served either with a
copy of the initial state court pleadings or with a state
court summons. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1); Ackerman v.
PNC Bank, N.A., No. 12-cv-42 (SRN/JSM), 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 113207, at *3-4 (D. Minn. Aug. 13, 2012) (Nelson, J.).
The party seeking removal has the burden of establishing that
removal is appropriate. See e.g. Baker v. Martin Marietta
Materials, Inc., 745 F.3d 919, 923-24 (8th Cir. 2014). A
removing party may not “inject a federal question into
an otherwise state-law claim and thereby transform the action
into one arising under federal law.” Id. at
924, citing Gore v. Trans World Airlines, 210 F.3d
944, 948 (8th Cir. 2000).
Court may raise the issue of remand sua sponte if
there is any indication that the Court lacks federal question
jurisdiction. The Court has a duty to examine whether
jurisdiction is appropriate in federal court. See Krein
v. Norris, 250 F.3d 1184, 1187 (8th Cir. 2001);
Magee v. Exxon Corp., 135 F.3d 599, 601 (8th Cir.
1998). “If at any time before final judgment it appears
that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
the case shall be remanded.”
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (emphasis added); see
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 68,
107 S.Ct. 1542, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987) (explaining that the
prudent course for a federal district court that does not
find clear Congressional intent to create removal
jurisdiction is to remand the case to state court). Section
1441(b) empowers the Court to remand all matters not
otherwise within its original jurisdiction and, given the
present posture of this case, the Court concludes that a
remand is warranted. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
here is not appropriate for at least two reasons. First, if
Plaintiffs in this action are also plaintiffs in state court,
they do not have authority to remove the ...