PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has remanded the racial discrimination case of a former doctoral candidate at the University of Pittsburgh to state court, explaining that the action’s removal to federal court by the plaintiff was improper.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand ruled Dec. 29 that N.W.’s case against the University of Pittsburgh would be headed back to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.
“Plaintiff, a former doctoral candidate at defendant University of Pittsburgh, originally filed this action in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 26, alleging that defendant discriminated against him on the basis of race. In particular, plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the university graded him more harshly because of his race and in retaliation for seeking redress of that discrimination,” Wiegand said.
“Judge [Philip A.] Ignelzi of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas held a hearing on plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief on Dec. 15 via videoconference. Judge Ignelzi denied plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief the same day. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, which Judge Ignelzi denied on Dec. 16. The next day, plaintiff removed the action to this Court and sought an emergency injunction to reinstate him as a doctoral student at defendant University.”
The federal court held a telephone status Conference on Dec. 21 to discuss the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, where the defendant expressed its position that plaintiff’s removal of this case to federal court was improper. Consequently, the defendant filed a brief in opposition to removal on Dec. 28.
Wiegand explained that federal law states only a defendant or defendants may remove a case, that Congress’s decision to restrict removal to defendants is jurisdictional and that plaintiffs who elect to originally file their claims in state court deprive the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction.
“Here, the law is clear that plaintiffs cannot remove an action from state court if they originally filed in a state court as plaintiff has. Plaintiff exercised his prerogative as ‘master of his own claim’ to choose his preferred forum among the proper fora when he filed his claims in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas,” Wiegand said.
“It is just and proper to expect plaintiff to litigate his claims in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. Moreover, by filing his claims in state court, plaintiff stripped this Court of jurisdiction to hear the case. Absent jurisdiction, the case must be remanded to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas for disposition.”
Wiegand added that even if a plaintiff could remove a case to federal court, removal to obtain the relief requested would be improper, as such a review would violate the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal courts, other than the U.S. Supreme Court, from conducting a direct review of state court decisions without specific authorization from Congress.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01964
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-010630
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com