Reported / Citable
Background
P.C.F. Properties in Tex, LLC brought a residential eviction action against Chantee T. Coleman in Harris County Justice Court. Coleman, proceeding pro se, removed the case to federal court.
In her notice of removal, Coleman invoked federal-question jurisdiction, contending that the property was connected to an FHA-insured mortgage and anticipated transfer to HUD. She also referenced due process, the Supremacy Clause, and 28 U.S.C. § 1443. The court issued a show-cause order to the plaintiff concerning jurisdiction, but the plaintiff did not respond.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo recommended that the case be remanded sua sponte because the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s eviction claim arises under Texas law, and the well-pleaded complaint did not present a substantial disputed federal question.
Coleman’s assertions about HUD, constitutional rights, and a pending quiet-title action did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. Her own attachments indicated that she, rather than HUD, owned the property. Nor did § 1443 support removal: her broad constitutional allegations were not rights stated in terms of racial equality, and § 1443(2) applies only to federal officers, agents, and persons authorized to act for them. The report also indicated that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because the parties appeared to be Texas citizens.
Key Takeaways
- A state-law eviction petition does not become a federal case based on a defendant’s federal defenses or constitutional allegations.
- Claims involving an FHA-insured mortgage or a possible HUD conveyance did not supply federal jurisdiction on these facts.
- Section 1443 removal is narrowly limited and does not cover generalized due-process or Supremacy Clause arguments by a private litigant.
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores that federal courts must examine subject-matter jurisdiction on their own initiative, even when neither side contests it. For eviction defendants, federal assertions connected to financing programs or constitutional objections generally will not justify removal unless the plaintiff’s complaint itself supplies a federal claim or another valid jurisdictional basis exists.
Because this was a report and recommendation, the parties had fourteen days after service to object.