United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the defendants' motion to remand. Doc. #14.
25, 2017, in the Justice Court of Sunflower County,
Mississippi, Steven Tyler executed: (1) a criminal affidavit
charging that “James Bobo did purposely, knowingly and
unlawfully cause bodily injury to Steven Tyler by grabbing
him around the neck and choking him, ” Doc. #3-3; (2) a
criminal affidavit charging that “John Rogers did
purposely, knowingly and unlawfully cause bodily injury to
Steven Tyler, ” Doc. #3-5; and (3) a criminal affidavit
charging that “William Carter did purposely, knowingly,
and unlawfully cause bodily injury to Steven Tyler, ”
5, 2017, Bobo, with the consent of Rogers and Carter, removed
the state court actions associated with the charging
affidavits to this Court. Doc. #1. In their notice of
removal, the defendants allege that they are “law
enforcement officers employed by the Mississippi Department
of Corrections (MDOC) and who investigate federal civil
rights violations of MDOC inmates when committed by
facility-staff” and that the allegations of the
charging affidavits relate to the execution of their duties.
Id. at ¶¶ 4-13. The defendants assert
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 and 28 U.S.C. §
1443. Id. at ¶¶ 16-18.
March 28, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden
issued an order directing “defense counsel to
thoroughly brief the bases for federal jurisdiction over this
action.” Doc. #7. The defendants never filed a brief as
directed. Rather, on May 8, 2018, the defendants filed a
motion to remand which states, “Upon further review of
the facts and circumstances in this cause[, ] the Petitioners
are of the opinion that Sunflower County is a more
appropriate forum for the disposition of this matter.”
Doc. #14. Tyler never filed a response to the motion to
their motion to remand, the defendants appear to argue that
this Court has jurisdiction over this action but that a
discretionary remand is warranted because the various
prosecutions are more appropriately tried in state court.
Such a remand seems to be beyond this Court's authority.
See Buchner v. F.D.I.C., 981 F.2d 816, 819-20 (5th
Cir. 1993) (discussing authority for discretionary remands).
Nevertheless, because this Court finds that it lacks
jurisdiction over this action, remand is warranted.
well-established federal law, “the party asserting
federal jurisdiction … has the burden of demonstrating
that jurisdiction is proper.” Lower Co. River Auth.
v. Papalote Creek II, L.L.C., 858 F.3d 916, 921 (5th
Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted). As explained above, the
defendants' notice of removal invokes federal
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 and 1443.
A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a
State court and that is against or directed to any of the
following may be removed by them to the district court of the
United States for the district and division embracing the
place wherein it is pending:
(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer
(or any person acting under that officer) of the United
States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual
capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such
office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed
under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment
of criminals or the collection of the revenue.
(2) A property holder whose title is derived from any such
officer, where such action or prosecution affects the
validity of any law of the United States.
(3) Any officer of the courts of the United States, for or
relating to any act under color of office or in the