Futia v. Roberts

Background

Anthony J. Futia, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, began the action by filing a summons and complaint in Supreme Court, Westchester County, on February 2, 2023. The defendants named in the caption were Raymond Roberts, Douglas O’Donnell, Chase Bank, Bank of Greene County, Westchester County Clerk Timothy C. Idoni, and Social Security Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi.

Roberts, O’Donnell, and Kijakazi, whom the court called the “Federal Defendants,” removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), the federal-officer removal statute. That statute permits federal officers to transfer certain state-court cases to federal court when the cases concern acts taken under federal authority. The Federal Defendants argued that they were being sued for actions taken under color of federal office.

The Federal Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss and asserted qualified immunity, a legal protection that can shield government officials from certain lawsuits. The opinion states that the motion invoked Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(1).

Motion to Remand

Futia filed a document titled “Jurisdiction Challenge.” He argued that federal courts have limited jurisdiction, that the case involved “fraud and torts,” and that there were no constitutional issues to decide. He asked the court to return the action to state court. The court construed this filing as a motion to remand, meaning a request to send the case back to the state court where it began.

Ruling

The court denied Futia’s motion to remand. It concluded that removal was proper because Futia sued Roberts, O’Donnell, and Kijakazi in their capacities as federal officers. The court also relied on the Federal Defendants’ qualified-immunity defense and cited the Supreme Court’s explanation that an important reason for federal-officer removal is to have the validity of an official-immunity defense decided in federal court.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The order did not decide the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss.