Amos Camille v. Miami-Dade County, MDCR

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1646
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 19, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1646 Lower Tribunal No. 23-4298-CA-01 ________________

Amos Camille, Appellant,

vs.

Miami-Dade County, MDCR, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County.

Amos Camille, in proper person.

Geraldine Bonzon-Keenan, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and William X. Candela, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.

GORDO, J. Amos Camille (“Camille”) appeals an order dismissing his federal

action against the Miami-Dade County Department of Corrections. The

underlying action was removed to the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Florida and later dismissed without prejudice. Camille

appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit, which remains pending.

It is well-settled that upon the filing of “notice of removal of a civil action”

with the state court, “the [s]tate court shall proceed no further unless and

until the case is remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). Because there is no order

of remand from the federal court in this case, we dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction. See Preston v. Allstate Ins. Co., 627 So. 2d 1322, 1324 (Fla.

3d DCA 1993) (“In the present case the federal court dismissed the removed

action without prejudice . . . From the viewpoint of the state court, the removal

statute gives the state court a clear demarcation of when state court

jurisdiction ceases, and when (if ever) the state court may resume

jurisdiction. Under the statute, state court jurisdiction ceases when a copy

of the notice of removal is filed in the state court. Thereafter, the state court

is allowed to resume jurisdiction of the removed case if, and only if, the

federal court grants permission by entering an order of remand. The statute

is explicit on this point. There [is] no order of remand in this case.

2 Consequently the [state] court [can]not resume jurisdiction of the removed

action.”); Weiser v. Bierbrouwerij, B.V., 430 So. 2d 986, 987 (Fla. 3d DCA

1983) (“Once a matter is removed to the federal court, a state trial court and

its judge have no jurisdiction over the matter . . . .”); Gen. Elec. Credit Corp.

v. Smith, 484 So. 2d 75, 76 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (“[R]emoval to federal court

divests the state court of jurisdiction to proceed. The state court’s jurisdiction

is suspended from the moment of removal until the case is remanded to it by

the federal court.”).

Dismissed.