Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio grants Defendant Jessica Brown leave to proceed in forma pauperis and permission to file electronically. The Magistrate Judge recommends remanding the removed Ohio eviction proceeding to the Franklin County Municipal Court because the state-law eviction claims do not support federal jurisdiction, and because defenses or counterclaims based on federal law do not create removal jurisdiction. The recommendation also advises denying Defendant’s pending motion for injunction and motion to compel and/or contempt as moot.
Holdings
- The state-law eviction action did not provide a basis for original federal-question jurisdiction, and the court recommended remanding the action to the Franklin County Municipal Court.
- A defendant's federal defenses or counterclaims involving federal rental-assistance programs or federal statutes do not create federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law eviction action.
- To the extent Defendant sought to overturn the state-court agreed judgment or writ of restitution and setout, those claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
- When a removed action provides no basis for federal jurisdiction, the court may dismiss it as frivolous and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
Questions Presented
- Whether the federal district court had original subject-matter jurisdiction over a state-law forcible-entry-and-detainer action removed by the tenant.
- Whether the tenant's anticipated federal defenses or counterclaims concerning federal rental assistance, retaliation, or discrimination could establish federal-question jurisdiction.
- Whether claims seeking to overturn the state-court agreed judgment or writ of restitution were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
- Whether the tenant's motions for an injunction and to compel and/or for contempt should be denied as moot upon recommendation of remand.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (12)
- Yeschick v. Mineta, 675 F.3d 622, 630 (6th Cir. 2012)(followed)
- Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Indi's Fast Food Rest., Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00590, 2016 WL 7473130, at *6 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 28, 2016)(followed)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992)(followed)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)(followed)
- Williams v. Cincy Urb. Apts., No. 1:10-cv-153, 2010 WL 883846, at *2 n.1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2010)(followed)
- Carlock v. Williams, 182 F.3d 916, 1999 WL 454880, at *2 (6th Cir. June 22, 1999) (table)(followed)
- Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002)(followed)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923)(followed)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983)(followed)
- In re Cook, 551 F.3d 542, 548 (6th Cir. 2009)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.