Novak v. Hernandez

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: November 10, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00157
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON 2 Nov 10, 2021

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 THOMAS NOVAK, No. 2:21-cv-00157-SMJ 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 6 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO v. DISMISS 7 JOHN HERNANDEZ, 8 Defendant. 9

10 Before the Court is Defendant John Hernandez’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack 11 of Jurisdiction, ECF No. 7. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, opposes the motion, ECF 12 No. 18. Having reviewed the pleadings and the file in this matter, the Court is fully 13 informed and grants the motion. 14 BACKGROUND 15 On February 22, 2021, Plaintiff Thomas Novak filed a lawsuit against FBI 16 Task Force Officer John Hernandez (“TFO Hernandez”) in the Small Claims 17 Department of the District Court of Spokane County, Washington. ECF No. 1-1. 18 The lawsuit stems from a minor vehicle accident in which Mr. Novak allegedly 19 sideswiped TFO Hernandez’s federal law enforcement vehicle. At the time of the 20 accident, TFO Hernandez was acting as a federal law enforcement officer. ECF 1 No. 2 at 2. 2 Despite being cited as at-fault for the accident, Mr. Novak sued TFO

3 Hernandez, claiming $4,000 in damages sustained to his vehicle. ECF No. 1-1. 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges TFO Hernandez treated him poorly while 5 exchanging information and appears to suggest that TFO Hernandez persuaded

6 the investigating Spokane Police Officer to find Mr. Novak at fault for the 7 accident. Id. 8 On May 6, 2021, TFO Hernandez removed the lawsuit to this Court under 9 the federal officer removal statute. ECF No. 1. Shortly thereafter, TFO

10 Hernandez filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s lawsuit under the derivative 11 jurisdiction doctrine. After being granted several final opportunities to respond, 12 Mr. Novak filed a one-page response and accompanying declaration of a

13 third-party witness. Both the response and declaration address only the merits 14 of Plaintiff’s claim—not the jurisdictional issue raised by Defendant. 15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 The jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited to “cases” and

17 “controversies.” U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. If a federal court determines at any time 18 that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. 19 P. 12(h)(3).

20 1 A plaintiff may not sue a federal officer acting within the scope of his 2 duty in a state court. Rodriguez v. United States, 788 F. App’x 535, 536 (9th Cir.

3 2019) (“The FTCA’s limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity does 4 not extend to suits filed in state court.”). Accordingly, the Washington state court 5 where Plaintiff filed his claim lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In turn, this case

6 must be dismissed under the derivate jurisdiction doctrine. The derivative 7 jurisdiction doctrine provides that if a state court lacks jurisdiction over a case, a 8 federal court does not acquire jurisdiction on removal. Minnesota v. United States, 9 305 U.S. 382, 235 (1939). Although the doctrine has been abolished with respect to

10 the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly 11 held that the doctrine still applies to the federal officer removal statute. See, e.g., 12 Cox v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 800 F.3d 1031, 1032 (9th Cir. 2015).

13 Because the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 14 lawsuit and Defendant removed it under the federal officer removal statute, this 15 Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter and it must be dismissed. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

17 1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, ECF No. 7, 18 is GRANTED. 19 2. Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 20, is DENIED AS

20 MOOT. 1 3. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are DISMISSED WITHOUT 2 PREJUDICE. 3 4. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and 4 CLOSE the file.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and 6 || provide copies to all counsel.

7 DATED this 10% day of November 2021. g pat betes 5 SALVADOR MENDOZAUIR. United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20