Ramos v. Poore et al
| Jose Ramos |
| Corey Poore and James Curtis |
| 3:2022cv01533 |
| December 2, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| S Dave Vatti |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
ORDER granting #16 Motion for Receipt. The Court confirms that it has received Plaintiff's motion for remand, filed December 28, 2022, at ECF No. #12 . Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 01/20/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Filing 16 Plaintiffs MOTION for Receipt, by Jose Ramos. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 15 RESPONSE re #14 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Motion to Dismiss filed by James Curtis, Corey Poore. (Ouellette, Scott) |
| Filing 14 Plaintiffs Motion In Opposition To Defendants re #10 MOTION to Dismiss, filed by Jose Ramos. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 13 OBJECTION re #12 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by James Curtis, Corey Poore. (Ouellette, Scott) |
| Filing 12 Plaintiff's MOTION For Remand Of Case Back to State Court Per. SEC. 1447 (c), by Jose Ramos. Responses due by 1/18/2023. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE by James Curtis, Corey Poore re #10 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction NOTICE TO PRO SE LITIGANT OPPOSING MOTION TO DISMISS (Ouellette, Scott) |
| Filing 10 MOTION to Dismiss (), MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction () by James Curtis, Corey Poore.Responses due by 1/4/2023 (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support)(Ouellette, Scott) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER. The Court construes ECF No. #8 , Plaintiff's objection to Defendants' notice of removal, as a motion to remand this case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). For the reasons below, Plaintiff's request that this case be remanded to state court is DENIED.A defendant may remove an action originally filed in state court to federal court if the case could have been filed in federal court in the first instance. Vera v. Saks & Co., 335 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2003). "Absent diversity of citizenship, a case may be filed in federal court in the first instance 'when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.'" Id. (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). After a case has been removed to federal court, a party may move to remand the case back to state court pursuant to section 1447(c). When a plaintiff moves for remand, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the propriety of removal, Samanich v. Facebook, No. 20-CV-04058(KAM)(LB), 2021 WL 2856634, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 8, 2021), and any doubts must be resolved against removability, Teamsters Loc. 404 Health Servs. & Ins. Plan v. King Pharms., Inc., 906 F.3d 260, 267 (2d Cir. 2018). Importantly, a district court must remand a case to state court "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction." Vera, 335 F.3d at 113 (alteration in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 1447(c)).Plaintiff asserts that removal of this case was improper because "this action is not a [section] 1983 action but rather a common law cause of action with a demand for more than $20.00." ECF No. #8 at 1. Plaintiff's complaint, however, is brought pursuant to "Articles III and VI and the 1st, (4th, 5th, 6th), 7th, 9th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution," Compl., ECF No. 1, at 6, and, in asserting each of his claims, Plaintiff reiterates throughout the complaint that he is alleging violations of his rights under the U.S. Constitution, see id. paras. 32-47. While some of the claims listed within the "Legal Claims" paragraphs of Plaintiff's complaint might be properly brought under state law, Plaintiff's complaint frames all of his claims as alleging constitutional violations. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that removal was proper because a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint and, therefore, this action could have been filed in federal court in the first instance pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. For these reasons, Plaintiff's request for remand is denied.The Court further notes that, in ECF No. #8 , Plaintiff claims that the Department of Correction has deducted money from his inmate trust account to pay his filing fee in this action. In a removed action such as this, the removing party, rather than the plaintiff, is required to pay the filing fee. Here, it appears that Defendants properly paid the filing fee when they removed this action. See ECF No. 1. Finally, the Court notes that Defendants' response to Plaintiff's complaint is overdue. The Court hereby sua sponte extends Defendants' response deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c)(2), and orders that Defendants must answer Plaintiff's complaint or present other defenses or objections under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by December 20, 2022. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 12/13/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Docket Entry Correction re 3 Notice (Other). Entry entered in error. (Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 8 Plaintiffs Objection To Plaintiffs Notice of Removal By Defendants From Superior Court of New London To This Court, filed by Jose Ramos. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES: Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #4 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #1 Notice of Removal, filed by James Curtis, Corey Poore, #6 Protective Order, #5 Electronic Filing Order. Signed by Clerk on 12/5/2022. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order On Removed Cases) (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 6
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 12/2/2022. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 12/2/2022. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 1/31/2023. Discovery due by 6/3/2023. Dispositive Motions due by 7/8/2023. Signed by Clerk on 12/2/2022. (Mendez, D)
|
| Filing 3 ENTERED IN ERROR - If there are pending motions, scan each pending motion with any supporting documents and then docket each motion separately using the motion event with the applicable relief to make them pending motions on our case. Add any supporting memoranda/documents or objections/memorandum as attachments to the motion(s). See Local Rules, Standing Order in Removed Cases. (Mendez, D) Modified on 12/8/2022 to mark as entered in error (Bozek, M.). |
| Filing 2 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Rule 7.1, any nongovernmental corporate party must electronically file a disclosure statement that identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock or states that there is no such corporation. Such disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 12/02/2022.(Anastasio, F.) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Detective/Officer James Curtis, Detective/Officer Corey Poore from Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New London, case number KNL-CV22-5023759-S. Filing fee $ 402 receipt number BCTDC-7155795, filed by Detective/Officer James Curtis, Detective/Officer Corey Poore. (Attachments: #1 Statement on Removal, #2 Notice to Party of Removal)(Ouellette, Scott) |
| Judge Sarala V. Nagala and Judge S. Dave Vatti added. (Freberg, B) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
