WILLIAMS

v.

TAMPA BAY EXTENDED STAY HOTEL

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2), which the Court construes as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff seeks a waiver of the filing fee for her complaint (Doc. 1).

However, because Plaintiff removed her own action from state court, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. As such, the undersigned recommends that this action be remanded to the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida.

I. Background

On June 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging racial discrimination under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Federal Fair Housing Act, as well as state law claims of “business tort” pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and premises liability (Doc. 1).

Upon closer review, however, Plaintiff’s filings reveal that she originally filed this action in the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida, which she herself then removed to this Court “due to the alleged violation being a federal violation.” See Doc. 1-1 (civil cover sheet filed by Plaintiff reflecting origin of this action as “Removed from State Court”); Doc. 1-2 (state action docket sheet); see also Williams v. Tampa Bay Extended Stay Hotel, No. 20-005870-CI, Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, Doc. 14 dated May 12, 2021 (Plaintiff’s Notice of Removal filed in the state action indicating that “Brittany Williams (Plaintiff) has removed this case from state court to the Middle District Federal Court due to the alleged violation being a federal violation.”).¹

II. Discussion

It is well-settled that the right, conferred by the federal removal statutes, to remove an action from a state court to federal district court is granted only to a defendant. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (providing that certain state court civil actions “may be removed by the defendant or the defendants”); 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (providing that certain state court civil actions or criminal prosecutions “may be removed by the defendant”); 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (outlining procedure for removal of civil actions by the “defendant or defendants”). There is no statutory authority allowing a plaintiff, the party that chose to initiate litigation in the state forum, to remove her own action to federal court. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 104-05 (1941); Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 264 F. 3d 1040, 1048 (11th Cir. 2001) (“The defendants’ right to remove a case is their right alone.”) (quotations and citation omitted); accord Yakama Indian Nation v. State of Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, 176 F. 3d 1241, 1248 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The right to remove a case from state to federal court is vested

Despite the apparent futility of Plaintiff’s claims as pleaded, “when a federal court has no jurisdiction of a case removed from a state court, it must remand and not dismiss on the ground of futility…. Whether the matter is justiciable under state law is a matter for the state court to decide.” Bromwell, 115 F. 3d at 214; see also Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (“Simply put, once a federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.”).

For these reasons, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: 1. This action be remanded to the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

2. The Clerk be directed to close this case.

IT IS SO REPORTED in Tampa, Florida, on September 28, 2021. : tL

SEAN P. FLYNN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO PARTIES

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations or request an extension of time to do so. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. Failure of any party to timely object in accordance with the provisions of § 636(b)(1) waives that party’s right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3-1.