Opinion
4:23-CV-00818-LPR
11-08-2023
MARIO BAUGH, PLAINTIFF v. GRISHAM LAW FIRM and SHERWOOD DISTRICT COURT, DEFENDANTS
ORDER
LEE P. RUDOIFSKY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court has struggled to figure out what exactly Mr. Baugh's various filings in this case are seeking to do. It appears Mr. Baugh is seeking to use 28 U.S.C. § 1441 to remove his pending state garnishment action from the jurisdiction of the Sherwood District Court to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. He may not do so. From the pleadings, it appears that the Grisham Law Firm initiated a garnishment action in state court on behalf of its client, the V.A. Hospital Federal Credit Union, against Mr. Baugh for the payment of $4,716.62 in debt owed. Mr. Baugh appears to want this Court to dismiss that garnishment action and to allow him to cross-claim and sue the Grisham Law Firm and the Sherwood District Court for sanctions under Arkansas law. Section 1441 does not support removal of this case as this Court would not have had original jurisdiction of that action. The diversity-of-citizenship requirement is not met, the amount-in-controversy requirement is not met, and there is no federal question.
Compl. (Doc. 2).
Id. at 8.
Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. 4). Mr. Baugh relies on Ark. R. Civ. P. 11.
Mr. Baugh appears to rely on 28 U.S.C. § 144, which concerns bias of a federal judge. See Compl. (Doc. 2) at 4. That provision in no way gives Mr. Baugh a federal right to proceed against either Defendant in this case.
This case is remanded to the state court. If, instead of removal of the state court action, Mr. Baugh was attempting to bring an entirely separate federal lawsuit (not related to the state garnishment action), he will need to file a new case and make his intentions clearer. The Clerk is directed to mail a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of the Sherwood District Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.