Opinion
3:23-CV-00518
04-24-2023
SCRANTON HOUSING AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. FREDERICK LITTLE, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUSAN E. SCHWAB, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On March 24, 2023, Defendant Frederick Little removed to this court this action-an eviction action against him filed in a Lackawanna County magisterial court. We recommend that the court remand the case to state court because this court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction.
“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (footnote omitted). Little asserts in his notice of removal that this court has federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That provision provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331.
“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule[.]'” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. “Under the well-pleaded-complaint rule, ‘federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.'” Maglioli v. All. HC Holdings LLC, 16 F.4th 393, 406 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392). Here, there is no federal question presented on the face of the state court complaint. See doc. 1-2.
According to Little, he “has many defenses and counterclaims . . . including Civil Rights Violations, . . . no due process . . . .” Doc. 1 at 1. But “[a] federal defense ‘ordinarily does not appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint, and, therefore, usually is insufficient to warrant removal to federal court.'” Maglioli, 16 F.4th at 406 (quoting Dukes v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 57 F.3d 350, 353 (3d Cir. 1995)). Thus, “[f]ederal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense[.]” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). “Nor can federal jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim.” Id. Thus, “counterclaims, even if they rely exclusively on federal substantive law, do not qualify a case for federal-court cognizance.” Id. at 62.
Because it appeared that this court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, by an Order dated March 28, 2023, we denied Little's motion titled “Emergency Motion to Expedite.” See doc. 6. We also ordered Little to show cause, if there is any, why this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 3. We ordered Little to show cause on or before April 18, 2023. Id. Little has not, however, responded to the show cause order.
The only items that Little filed after we issued the show-cause order are two documents that were filed in the state court. See docs. 7, 8.
In a case removed to federal court, “[i]f 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). Because this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, we recommend that the court remand this case to Lackawanna County Magisterial District Court, MDJ-45-1-02.
The Parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record
developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.