Duboise v. Piazza

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: May 31, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-10706
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DONNIE LEE DUBOISE, Plaintiff, Case No. 24-10706 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson v. OFFICER MATTHEW PIAZZA, Defendant. ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [3]

InFebruary2024,DonnieDuBoisesuedDavisonTownshipPoliceOfficer MatthewPiazzainMichiganstatecourt.SeeDuBoisev.Piazza,No.24-120476- CZ (Mich. 7th Cir. Ct. Feb. 26, 2024), available at (ECF No. 1-2). His claims stem from a January traffic stop and arrest that resulted in a misdemeanor

driving charge in state court. See Davison Township v. DuBoise, No. 24- 24B00112-OT (Mich. 67th Dist. Ct. filed Jan. 22, 2024), available at (ECF No. 3-3). In March, Piazza filed a notice of removal in this Court (ECF No. 1), then moved to dismiss DuBoise’s complaint (ECF No. 3). Not yet certain of its

subject matter jurisdiction over DuBoise’s claims, the Court issued a show- cause order directing Piazza to demonstrate that removal was proper. (ECF No. 7; see ECF No. 8 (Piazza’s response).) When Piazza’s response failed to clarify,theCourtinstructedDuBoisetoreplytoPiazza’sresponseand“explain in his own words why he has sued Piazza.” (ECF No. 9, PageID.65; see ECF No. 10 (DuBoise’s response).)

Given the information provided by the parties and the deficiencies identifiedinpriororders(seeECFNo.7,PageID.53–54;ECFNo.9,ECFNo.65; ECF No. 11, PageID.70), the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and orders this case remanded to state court. The Court is still

unable to discern a federal cause of action among DuBoise’s allegations—or among Piazza’s characterizations of DuBoise’s allegations. Indeed, Piazza has failed to satisfy his burden of “demonstrating that the case as pled falls within thefederalquestionjurisdictionofthedistrictcourt.”Warthmanv.GenoaTwp.

Bd. of Trs., 549 F.3d 1055, 1061 (6th Cir. 2008); see Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 549 (6th Cir. 2006) (“The party seeking removal bears the burdenofdemonstratingthatthedistrictcourthasoriginaljurisdiction.”).And “[w]ithoutjurisdictionthecourtcannotproceedatallinanycause.Jurisdiction

is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remainingtothecourtisthatofannouncingthefactanddismissingthecause.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). “Hence, in a removed action, upon determination that a federal court lacks jurisdiction,

remand to state court is mandatory . . . .” Coyne v. Am. Tobacco Co., 183 F.3d 488, 496–97 (6th Cir. 1999). Thus, because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case is REMANDED to the 7th Judicial Circuit Court for Genesee County, where

DuBoise initially filed suit. And Piazza’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3) is DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 31, 2024

s/Laurie J. Michelson LAURIE J. MICHELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE