Philogene v. District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs ( 2010 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_____________________________
)
HUBERT PHILOGENE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1399 (RWR)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND )
REGULATORY AFFAIRS, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________ )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Hubert Philogene filed an amended complaint
in the District of Columbia Superior Court against the District
of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, the
D.C. Office of the Attorney General, the D.C. Mayor, the
Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration, and the
Metropolitan Police Department, alleging false arrest and
imprisonment, “illegal citations,” and a violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The defendants removed the case to this court on the
basis of federal question jurisdiction. Although he acknowledges
asserting a federal cause of action in the amended complaint,
Philogene moves to remand this case to the Superior Court to
allow the court to determine whether defendants are in contempt
of one of that court’s orders.
-2-
“‘[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the
district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction,
may be removed by the . . . defendants[] to the district court of
the United States[.]’” Hughley v. Weinstock, Friedman &
Friedman, PA, Civil Action No. 06-88 (RWR), 2006 WL 2244574, at
*2 (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (2000))
(alterations in original) (footnote omitted). “The district
courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2006). “A plaintiff’s claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 that a defendant violated his constitutional rights
is a claim arising under the laws of the United States.”
Matthews v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 07-0031 (RWR),
2009 WL 5125915, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 30, 2009).
Along with his state law claims, Philogene alleges a § 1983
claim. Specifically, he asserts that the defendants violated his
Fourth Amendment and due process rights when a police officer,
acting under color of law and within the scope of his employment,
“arrested and presented the citations to [him,]” and that it was
the municipality’s custom or policy that caused the violation.
(Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 25-27.) Philogene asserted a claim arising
under federal law, making his complaint properly removable, and
he cites no authority to support his assertion that a removed
-3-
case should be remanded upon an allegation or a showing that a
defendant was in contempt of an order issued by the court from
which the case was removed. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion [4] to remand the case be,
and hereby is, DENIED.
SIGNED this 1st day of March, 2010.
/s/
RICHARD W. ROBERTS
United States District Judge