United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on defendant Thomas Earl
Anderson's motion to remand. Plaintiff has not responded
to the motion, and the time for doing so has passed. For the
following reasons, the Court grant defendant's motion and
will order the Clerk of Court to remand this action to the
Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.
8, 2019, pro se plaintiff Theodis Brown removed this personal
injury action from the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of the
City of St. Louis. See Brown v. Anderson, No.
1822-CC00256 (22nd Jud. Cir. 2019). Plaintiff originally
filed this action in the Circuit Court for the County of St.
Louis, alleging defendant injured him in an automobile
accident. Based on the docket sheet in the state court case,
venue was transferred from the County of St. Louis to the
City of St. Louis on February 6, 2018. The case remains
pending in St. Louis City Circuit Court, and the docket sheet
does not reflect that plaintiff has given any notice to the
state court of his filing of this notice of removal.
notice of removal, plaintiff states in full, “Come now
pro se insured motorist plaintiff motion to invoke USDC
removal from state to federal court.” Plaintiff
indicates on his civil cover sheet that the basis of
jurisdiction is diversity, but does not allege the
citizenship of defendant. In the caption of his civil cover
sheet, however, plaintiff indicates that both he and
defendant reside in St. Louis County. As to the nature of
this suit, plaintiff has checked the box for a RICO claim. He
also states he is requesting $1 billion in
August 2, 2019, defendant filed a motion to remand. Defendant
states this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction because
plaintiff has not alleged a federal question, the parties are
not diverse, and the amount in controversy does not exceed
$75, 000. Defendant has also filed two motions for sanctions
against plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
initial matter the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441,
does not allow for a plaintiff to remove a civil action from
state court to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. §
1441. For this reason, the Court will grant defendant's
motion and remand this action to the Circuit Court for the
City of St. Louis, where it was brought and remains pending.
assuming a plaintiff could remove his state court action to
federal court, plaintiff has not met the burden of
establishing federal jurisdiction. In re Business
Men's Assur. Co. of America, 992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th
Cir. 1993). The party seeking removal and opposing remand has
the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Id.
Plaintiff's notice of removal does not allege any
jurisdictional grounds for removal. Nor has plaintiff
responded to defendant's motion to remand. Plaintiff has
filed two documents, docketed as supplements to the notice of
removal, that are indecipherable. Thus, even if a plaintiff
could remove his state court action to federal court, this
action would be remanded for lack of subject matter
the Court will deny defendant's motions for sanctions
under Federal Rule 11. While plaintiffs filings are erratic
and often nonsensical, the Court cannot find that plaintiff
“to the best of [his] knowledge, information, and
belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances” i.e., knowingly, filed
documents for an improper purpose under Rule 11. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)-(c).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's
motion to remand is GRANTED. This case is
REMANDED to the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court
of the City of St. Louis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c). A separate order of remand will be entered herewith.
[ECF No. 6]
IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs pending motions
are DENIED as moot. [ECF Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10,
13, and 14]
IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motions for