King-Bomani Katahali v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, et al.

D. New Jersey

King-Bomani Katahali v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, et al.

District Court, D. New Jersey·Decided June 26, 2026·No. 1:26-cv-05700·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

KING-BOMANI KATAHALI LEHANA 1ST

Petitioner, No. 26cv5700 (RMB) (EAP)

v. MEMORANDUM ORDER

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Respondents.

BUMB, Chief District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant New Jersey Department of Corrections’ request to remand this matter to state court. Dkt. No. 4 (“Remand Request”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will remand this matter. I. BACKGROUND On May 19, 2026, Defendant New Jersey Department of Corrections (“NJDOC”) removed Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to this Court pursuant to . On May 26, 2026, counsel for NJDOC advised this Court that NJDOC’s co-defendant in this matter, Capital Health Systems (“Capital Health”), was served with Plaintiff’s complaint before removal from state court. Dkt. No. 3 (“May 26, 2026 Letter). Capital Health declined NJDOC’s request to consent to removal. Id. NJDOC now seeks remand to state court. Remand Request at 1. II. REMAND UPON DEFECTIVE REMOVAL Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) “[a] motion to remand the case on the basis of

any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a).” NJDOC has met the statutory deadline and has identified a procedural defect in the removal—failure to obtain consent of a co-defendant who was served with the complaint in State court prior to removal. See Balazik v. Cnty. of Dauphin, 44 F.3d 209, 213 (3d Cir.1995)

(quoting Cacoilo v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 902 F. Supp. 2d 511, 516 (D.N.J. 2012) (Under the rule of unanimity, a failure of all defendants to join in the notice of removal creates a “defect in the removal procedure within the meaning of § 1447(c).”) Therefore, remand is appropriate. III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, IT IS, on this 26th day of June 2026, ORDERED that NJDOC’s Request for Remand, Dkt. No. 4, is GRANTED; this matter is REMANDED to New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, Civil Division, case number MER-L-2444-25; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall CLOSE this matter. s/Renée Marie Bumb RENÉE MARIE BUMB Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

KING-BOMANI KATAHALI LEHANA 1ST

Petitioner, No. 26cv5700 (RMB) (EAP)

v. MEMORANDUM ORDER

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Respondents.

BUMB, Chief District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant New Jersey Department of Corrections’ request to remand this matter to state court. Dkt. No. 4 (“Remand Request”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will remand this matter. I. BACKGROUND On May 19, 2026, Defendant New Jersey Department of Corrections (“NJDOC”) removed Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to this Court pursuant to . On May 26, 2026, counsel for NJDOC advised this Court that NJDOC’s co-defendant in this matter, Capital Health Systems (“Capital Health”), was served with Plaintiff’s complaint before removal from state court. Dkt. No. 3 (“May 26, 2026 Letter). Capital Health declined NJDOC’s request to consent to removal. Id. NJDOC now seeks remand to state court. Remand Request at 1. II. REMAND UPON DEFECTIVE REMOVAL Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) “[a] motion to remand the case on the basis of

any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a).” NJDOC has met the statutory deadline and has identified a procedural defect in the removal—failure to obtain consent of a co-defendant who was served with the complaint in State court prior to removal. See Balazik v. Cnty. of Dauphin, 44 F.3d 209, 213 (3d Cir.1995)

(quoting Cacoilo v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 902 F. Supp. 2d 511, 516 (D.N.J. 2012) (Under the rule of unanimity, a failure of all defendants to join in the notice of removal creates a “defect in the removal procedure within the meaning of § 1447(c).”) Therefore, remand is appropriate. III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, IT IS, on this 26th day of June 2026, ORDERED that NJDOC’s Request for Remand, Dkt. No. 4, is GRANTED; this matter is REMANDED to New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, Civil Division, case number MER-L-2444-25; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall CLOSE this matter. s/Renée Marie Bumb RENÉE MARIE BUMB Chief United States District Judge

King-Bomani Katahali v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, et al., (D.N.J. 2026).

Pincite

King-Bomani Katahali v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, et al. (King-Bomani Katahali v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related