Reek v. Serier

Background

Kevin J. Reek brought this action in Ramsey County District Court against Jack Serier and other defendants. The complaint alleges that Richard Thomas Joles assaulted Reek in September 2017 while both men were in custody at the Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center. It also alleges that current and former Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office personnel and Saint Paul Police Officer Amy Boyer acted negligently and failed to protect Reek, violating the Eighth Amendment. Reek also asserted state-law claims, including assault and battery and negligence, and alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations.

The Ramsey County Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota based on federal-question jurisdiction. Reek moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court. He argued that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, lacked personal jurisdiction over Joles, and that removal violated procedural due process. He also argued that litigating in federal court would unfairly prejudice him because he was proceeding without a lawyer and was unfamiliar with federal procedures.

A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to remand because the notice of removal did not itself establish that all defendants had consented to removal. The Ramsey County Defendants objected and submitted evidence that Joles had signed a document stating, “I Agree with Removal.”

Court’s analysis

The district court reviewed the challenged portions of the report and recommendation anew. It agreed that the notice of removal was initially deficient because the defendants’ statement that Joles consented did not, by itself, provide a written indication from Joles. But the court held that the later-submitted evidence cured that problem. The evidence included an email exchange and a document bearing Joles’s handwritten statement, signature, and prisoner identification number. Under Eighth Circuit precedent, the court concluded that the rule requiring all served defendants to join in or consent to removal was satisfied.

The court also rejected Reek’s other arguments for remand. It held that the motion was timely because Reek had earlier attempted to challenge removal in a filing that was later struck, and his filings were entitled to a liberal reading because he was proceeding without a lawyer.

The court held that Reek’s failure-to-protect claims arose under the United States Constitution and therefore presented a federal question. It further held that the related state-law claims fell within supplemental jurisdiction because they arose from the same alleged assault. The court also concluded that Joles was subject to personal jurisdiction because he was incarcerated in Minnesota, had consented to removal, and was alleged to have committed the relevant conduct in Minnesota.

The court found no procedural due-process violation because Reek had no protected interest in keeping the case in state court and a plaintiff’s consent or advance opportunity to oppose removal is not required. It also ruled that unfamiliarity with federal rules and procedures was not a basis for remanding the case. The court did not address any severance request because no party had moved to sever the claims.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright sustained the defendants’ objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and rejected the report and recommendation. The court denied Kevin J. Reek’s motion to remand the case to Minnesota state court. The court remanded the matter to the magistrate judge to consider Reek’s motion to amend the complaint.