Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:07-CV-370-TS.
November 5, 2007
OPINION AND ORDER
The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed this complaint [DE 4] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Plaintiff has now filed a motion for relief from judgment or order pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court began its opinion and order dismissing the complaint by stating that "Christopher J. Stephens, a former Indiana resident who now resides in Georgia, filed a pro se complaint naming Jessica Sue Sluss, a resident of Elkhart, Indiana, as the Defendant." (DE 4.) In his motion for relief from the order, the Plaintiff asserts that "the court has made a grave error" because he "has never been or never will be a former Indiana resident. Plaintiff has always resided in the state of Georgia."
In his complaint, the Plaintiff stated that he "is broke due to 8 month arrest and detention in [the] Elkhart County Jail Complex." (DE 1.) Elkhart County is in Indiana. Georgia has no Elkhart County. Moreover, the question of whether or not the Plaintiff is a former Indiana resident is irrelevant to the grounds on which the Court dismissed this complaint.
The Plaintiff's complaint sought to remove a child support case and a criminal prosecution pending in the Elkhart Superior Court to this Court. The Court dismissed the complaint because the Plaintiff did not meet any of the procedural requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446 for removing a case from state court and because substantively, his state child support case cannot be removed to this Court because a party may only remove a case from state court where the federal courts have "original jurisdiction." 42 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Substantively, the Plaintiff's criminal case is also not subject to removal pursuant to the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53 (1971). Accordingly, while the Plaintiff's complaint establishes that he did reside in Indiana for at least eight months, his past or present residence has no bearing on the dismissal of his complaint.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Plaintiff's motion to correct error (DE 6).
SO ORDERED.