Summary
This D.C. Circuit opinion addresses whether a federal defendant may remove a civil action from a state appellate court to a federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a). The court held that such removal is permissible as long as the case remains pending within the state court system, rejecting the argument that it must be pending at the trial level. Additionally, the court found that the pro se appellant forfeited challenges to the timeliness of removal and the district court's dismissal by failing to object or move for remand below. The judgment of the district court dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim was affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a federal defendant may remove a case from a state appellate court to a federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a).
- Whether the alleged untimeliness or other procedural defects in removal were forfeited when Harris neither objected to removal nor moved for remand in the district court.
- Whether Harris preserved a challenge to the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim when he did not raise those challenges in his opening or reply briefs.
Holdings
- A federal defendant may remove a case to federal district court from a state appellate court when the case remains pending in the state court system and otherwise satisfies § 1442(a).
- Challenges to procedural defects in removal, including alleged untimeliness under § 1446, are nonjurisdictional and may be waived or forfeited; Harris forfeited those arguments by failing to object to removal or move for remand and by affirmatively litigating in federal court.
- Harris forfeited any challenge to the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim because he did not raise those arguments in his opening or reply briefs.
Key quotations
“Nevertheless, a case need not be pending in the court in which it originated.” (at 420)
“We conclude that the timeliness of removal under section 1446 is a procedural claims-processing rule and is not jurisdictional.” (at 423)
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismissal.” (at 424)
Factual background
Harris, who owned a commercial motor carrier business, sued the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Department of Transportation in the D.C. Superior Court for alleged fraud and abuse of process. The Superior Court dismissed the action sua sponte before DOT was properly served, and Harris appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals. DOT then removed the case to federal district court, where Harris amended his complaint but did not challenge removal or seek remand.
Procedural history
Harris filed a pro se action against the Department of Transportation in the D.C. Superior Court, which sua sponte dismissed the case for failure to state a claim before Harris appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals. DOT removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a). Harris did not move for remand or otherwise object to removal, amended his complaint, and affirmatively litigated in federal court. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, failure to state a claim; the D.C. Circuit affirmed because removal from the state appellate court was permissible and Harris forfeited his challenges.