A.W.S. v. Johnston

Background

A.W.S., an attorney licensed in California, filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Judge Iain D. Johnston in California state court. A.W.S. alleged that Johnston made factually incorrect statements to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary during his application to become a federal judge. A.W.S. also alleged that, after receiving confidential correspondence from A.W.S., Johnston made false statements to the Executive Committee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

According to the complaint, the Executive Committee then issued an order concerning A.W.S.’s conduct at the federal courthouse. The order stated that A.W.S. had engaged in disruptive behavior, made false statements on court documents, failed to comply with Executive Committee orders, and demanded videoconference sessions with judges. It required a United States Marshal to accompany A.W.S. while A.W.S. was present at the courthouse. A.W.S. alleged that the committee’s accusations were false and that the order was based on statements by Johnston intended to discredit A.W.S. A.W.S. sought declarations about Johnston’s statements, the order, and the alleged resulting injury.

Removal and Jurisdiction

The Government removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a), on behalf of Johnston in his official capacity. That statute permits certain suits against federal officers to be moved from state court to federal court when the suit relates to an act performed under federal authority and the officer raises a colorable federal defense. A colorable defense is a plausible federal-law defense; it need not already be proven valid at the removal stage.

The court found that the Government had provided enough evidence to show that statements Johnston allegedly made to the Executive Committee would have been made as part of his federal duty to assist that committee in carrying out its official powers. The court therefore found a sufficient connection between Johnston’s authority and the conduct alleged in the complaint.

The court also found that the Government had raised a colorable defense of sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity generally protects the United States from suit without congressional consent and can extend to officers acting within the scope of their authority. The court concluded that the requested declaratory relief could operate against the Government or interfere with official governmental communications.

Plaintiff’s Arguments

A.W.S. argued that Johnston acted on his own and that A.W.S. was not seeking relief against him in his official capacity. The court considered that issue premature because Johnston should have an opportunity to present his version of the facts in federal court. The court stated that a motion to remand was not the proper vehicle for deciding whether Johnston was acting within his official role.

A.W.S. also argued that Johnston’s statements to the Senate were made as an individual applying for a federal position rather than as part of his magistrate-judge duties. The court stated that, even assuming that argument was correct, the alleged statements to the Executive Committee independently supported removal of the entire action. The court rejected A.W.S.’s arguments based on a Seventh Circuit decision and on Ex Parte Young as irrelevant to the question of federal-officer removal jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court held that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 and denied A.W.S.’s motion to remand. It also denied as moot A.W.S.’s request for judicial notice because the order did not rely on those documents, and denied A.W.S.’s motion to correct the order regarding consent. The order did not decide whether Johnston made false statements, whether the allegations were defamatory, or whether A.W.S. was entitled to the requested declarations.