Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McGuire v. Edwards

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

February 8, 2018

DR. PATT MCGUIRE, Plaintiff,
v.
JERRY EDWARDS, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          CHARLES A. SHAW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This removed case is before the Court on pro se plaintiff Dr. Patt McGuire, Ph.D.'s (“plaintiff”) motion to remand.[1] No response has been filed to the motion and the time for any respond has passed. For the following reasons, the Court will remand this case to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, from which it was removed, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         Plaintiff states that she is a deputy detention juvenile officer employed by St. Louis County, Missouri. Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination lawsuit in state court in August 2017, McGuire v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., Case No. 17SL-CC-3123 (21st Judicial Circuit, State of Missouri) (the “Employment Discrimination case”).[2] The instant case was filed in state court in December 2017. Plaintiff sues two defendants, Jerry Edwards and St. Louis County, Missouri, and alleges the following facts:

         On November 21, 2017, plaintiff looked up her Employment Discrimination case on Missouri Case.net to see its progress.[3] (Petition ¶ 6.) Plaintiff saw that beneath the names of defendants St. Louis County Missouri, and St. Louis County Missouri (Administrator Judge) on the Case.net docket sheet were the words “Party End Dated: 11/21/2017” and “Party End Reason: Party Released/Ended.” (Id. ¶¶ 17-18; Ex. A.)

         On November 27, 2017, plaintiff went to the St. Louis County Circuit Court to file several documents in her Employment Discrimination case. (Id. ¶ 6.) After filing the documents, plaintiff went to Judge Dean Paul Waldemer's court and spoke to his clerk, Jackie Dougherty. (Id. ¶ 11.) “Among the questions the Plaintiff asked Jackie Daugherty was if she could explain the updated information in Missouri Case Net dated 11-21-2017. The Plaintiff specifically asked what does ‘Release/Ended' mean. The Plaintiff asked if that meant that the Defendants were released from the case and if that meant the case was over.” (Id.)

         Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Daugherty conferred with the judge and returned to the courtroom and told plaintiff “the judge said he did not do that.” (Id. ¶ 11.) Ms. Daugherty instructed plaintiff to return to the Circuit Clerk's Office and ask the manager how that information got into Case.net. Plaintiff went to the Clerk's Office to ask but the lead manager was not in that day. (Id.) Plaintiff returned the next day, November 28, 2017, and spoke to defendant Edwards, lead manager/director for the Circuit Clerk's Office. (Id. ¶ 12). Plaintiff explained to Edwards her conversation of the previous day with Jackie Daugherty in Judge Waldemer's courtroom, concerning changes shown on the docket sheet on Case.net on November 21, 2017. Plaintiff showed Edwards screen shots of two pages of the docket sheet from Case.net, which are attached to the Petition as Exhibits A and B. (Id. ¶ 12.)

         Edwards asked plaintiff if he could go check to see what she was talking about, and then returned and told plaintiff he had corrected the problem and not to worry about it because it had been corrected. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff asked how this happened and who did it, and asked for the name of the person or persons who did it. (Id.) Edwards responded that he would have to check with the legal department and plaintiff asked that Edwards get back to her on her request for this information. (Id. ¶ 14.) When plaintiff had not heard from Edwards two days later, she filed a subpoena “with about 29 questions related to details on the tampered information in Case Net on the Plaintiff['s] mentioned case on November 30, 2017.” (Id. ¶ 15.)

         A little over two weeks later, plaintiff filed this action in St. Louis County Circuit Court on December 18, 2017, naming as defendants Jerry Edwards and St. Louis County, Missouri. The petition is titled “Tampering Petition” and asserts that it is a “civil action authorized by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 and 1520.” (Id. ¶ 1.) The petition also mentions 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 1505, 1506, 1512, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In Section V of the petition, titled “Legal Claims, ” plaintiff incorporates her factual allegations and asserts: “The tampering violated Plaintiff's (Dr. Patt McGuire) Constitutional and legal rights.” (Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff further asserts that she “has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at [sic] to redress the wrongs described herein. Plaintiff has been and will continue to be irreparably injured by the conduct of the defendants unless this court grants the declaratory relief which plaintiff seeks.” (Id. ¶ 23.)

         Plaintiff's prayer for relief seeks a declaration that “the acts and omissions described herein violated Plaintiff's rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” (Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages in the amount of “thirty-five million (35 Millions) against each defendant, jointly and severally, ” (id. ¶ 25), and punitive damages in the amount of “$35 Million” against each defendant. (Id. ¶ 26.)

         Defendant Edwards removed the case to this Court on January 17, 2018, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, stating, “Plaintiff alleges her lawsuit violations [sic] 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 and 1520, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.” (Notice of Removal at 1-2.) This Court issued orders directing Edwards to supplement his Notice of Removal to provide the complete state court record (Docs. 13, 15), and Edwards has complied. The Court now turns to plaintiff's motion to remand.

         II. Motion to Remand

         Plaintiff moves to remand the case to state court, on the grounds that “trying the case in federal court would waste the Courts [sic] time” and “because Plaintiff was correct in filing the case in state court because the case fit all requirements for state court hearing the case.” Mot. to Remand at 1. Plaintiff also asserts in support of remand to state court that (1) the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75, 000; (2) defendant Edwards resides or does business in the district; (3) the Employment Discrimination case “which contains events leading up to the lawsuit is the overlapping originating case”; (4) defendant was served with process “in the building of the state court”; (5) the “state court is competent to hear and decide on the subject matter of tampering within the court's jurisdiction”; (6) personal jurisdiction exists “because the Defendant is present in Missouri and is a legal resident of the state in which the lawsuit has been filed”; and (7) the case is between individuals and “the Defendant's employer - St. Louis County Missouri/St. Louis County Courts.” (Id. ¶¶ 1-7.) As previously stated, neither defendant responded to the motion to remand.

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.