United States District Court, D. Delaware
Court of the State of Delaware: in and for New Castle County:
C.A. No. N16L-03-181 EMO
K. Cartwright, Esquire, Atlantic Law Group, Wilmington,
Delaware. Counsel for Plaintiff.
Gregory Tucker, New Castle, Delaware. Pro se Defendant.
CONNOLLY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Gregory Tucker filed a notice of removal on August 14, 2018,
of LSF9 Master Participation Trust v. Tucker,
Delaware State Court No. N16L-03-181 EMD (Del. Super.). (D.I.
2). Defendant appears pro se and has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court
proceeds to screen the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons discussed below, the Court
will summarily remand the matter to the Superior Court of the
State of Delaware in and for New County.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
March 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a scire facias sur mortgage
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in
and for New Castle County ("Superior Court")
against Defendant and Karen Tucker seeking foreclosure of
their interest in real properly located in New Castle,
Delaware. (D.I. 2 at Ex. 1) On April 19, 2017, the Superior
Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff finding
that: (1) Plaintiff is the valid holder of the mortgage; (2)
Defendant and Tucker executed the mortgage; (3) they
defaulted on their obligation to Plaintiff; and (4) they owed
the amount of judgment sought by Plaintiff, (id. at
obtaining judgment, the property was sold at a sheriffs sale
on October 10, 2017 to Plaintiff who was the highest bidder,
(id. at Ex. 2) The sale was confirmed on November
24, 2017, the New Castle County Sheriff executed a deed
transferring the property on December 21, 2017 and, on July
17, 2018, the Superior Court entered an order granting a writ
of possession for Plaintiff to have possession of the
property, (id.) The writ of possession issued on
August 1, 2018, and on August 10, 2018, a notice of eviction
was posted on the property. (Id.) Defendant removed
the matter to this Court on August 14, 2018. The Court takes
judicial notice of the Superior Court docket that eviction
was served on August 30, 2018, the door locks were changed
and possession was transferred to Plaintiff's agent
without incident. See Super. Ct. Sept. 5, 2018
removed this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1441-1446. He demands his right to due process under the
Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution
and states there was an unconstitutional foreclosure and
eviction. (D.I. 2 at 4, 8, 9)
exercise of removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a) which states that, in order to remove a civil
action from state court to federal court, a district court
must have original jurisdiction by either a federal question
or diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
1332, 1441(a). Section 1441(a) and § 1443 both provide
that the action may be removed by the defendant to the
district court of the United States. Id. at
§§ 1441(a), 1446. The removal statutes are strictly
construed and require remand to State court if any doubt
exists over whether removal was proper. Shamrock Oil
& Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 104 (1941).
will remand a removed case "if at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The
party seeking removal bears the burden to establish federal
jurisdiction. Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch &
Signal Div. Am. Standard, Inc., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d
Cir. 1987); Zoren v. Genesis Energy, LP., 195
F.Supp.2d 598, 602 (D. Del. 2002). In determining whether
remand based on improper removal is appropriate, the Court
"must focus on the plaintiffs complaint at the time the
petition for removal was filed," and assume all factual
allegations therein are true. Steel Valley Auth.,
809 F.2d at 1010.
notice of removal, Defendant states there is a "federal
question, constitution, treaty, religious liberty, due
process, substantive rights, Supreme Court rulings."
(D.I. 2 at 1) A district court has federal-question
jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendant asserts ...