Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brooks v. District of Columbia Bar Board of Governors

August 9, 2006

DWIGHT ELLIS BROOKS PLAINTIFF
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR BOARD OF GOVERNORS, GLADYS KESSLER, HARRY T. EDWARDS, NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON, RICARDO M. URBINA, AND EMMET G. SULLIVAN DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garnett Thomas Eisele United States District Judge

ORDER

Before the Court are various motions, including: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Remand; (2) Separate Defendant District of Columbia Bar Board of Governors' Motion to Dismiss; and (3) Separate Defendants Sullivan, Kessler, Edwards, Whittington, and Urbina's Motion to Dismiss. The Court concludes, for the reasons herein stated, that this action was properly removed to federal court by Defendants and that the Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety against each and every Defendant.

After discussing the factual and procedural background, the Court will consider each motion separately.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Dwight Ellis Brooks, proceeding pro se, originally filed this action in the Pulaski County Circuit Court. It is virtually impossible to decipher the exact parameters of Plaintiff's allegations of wrongdoing from examining the word-salad that is Plaintiff's Complaint. It is clear that Plaintiff is seeking relief in the form of $12,000,000 from Defendants. The Complaint contains a laundry list of various Arkansas state and federal statutes and various case citations. It further alleges that the Defendants have engaged in "acts and conducts [sic] prejudicial to the due and proper administration of justice and law" and "employed and devised [a] scheme to defraud black citizen, Dwight Ellis Brooks. . ." (Complaint).

It further appears that Mr. Brooks' allegations may have something to do with a past matter before the United States District Court fo the District of Columbia, as he has attached what appears to be pleading dated January 18, 2005, which was filed in the United States District Court of the District of Columbia.

On February 9, 2006, the Defendant District of Columbia Bar Board of Governors ("D.C. Bar") removed the action to federal district court. As cause for removal, the D.C. Bar asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on both diversity of citizenship and federal question jurisdiction.

From the Notice of Removal, the identify of the Defendants is clarified and other information is gleaned. An Affidavit signed by Katherine A. Mazzaferri, the Executive Driector of the D.C. Bar, indicates that the D.C. Bar is an arm of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, that the D.C. Bar's principal place of business is located in Washington, D.C., and that the D.C. Bar has no offices located in Arkansas and is not an incorporated entity under the laws of any state.

Defendants Gladys Kessler, Emmet G. Sullivan, and Ricardo M. Urbina, are all sitting United States District Court Judges for the District of Columbia. Defendant Harry T. Edwards is a United States Circuit Court Judge for the District of Columbia. Defendant Nancy Mayer Whittington is the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

(1) Plaintiff's Motion to Remand

Plaintiff seeks to remand this action back to the Pulaski County Circuit Court from which it was removed.

Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff's motion is untimely filed. Plaintiff filed his motion to remand on March 29, 2006, more than thirty days after the case was removed to federal court on February 9, 2006. Accordingly, the motion is untimely filed and might be denied on that basis alone. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

The motion also lacks merit. While it is difficult to comprehend Plaintiff's arguments, the Court has satisfied itself that subject matter jurisdiction exists in this case. From the face of Plaintiff's Complaint (and the information provided by the D.C. Bar regarding the residence of the Defendants), it appears that this Court has both original diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. When diversity jurisdiction is properly invoked, a defendant may remove state law causes of action to federal court. Independently of the Court's exercise of diversity jurisdiction, the Court is also authorized to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all state law claims that are related to the federal causes of action.

28 U.S.C. § 1367. For both of these reasons, the Court concludes that Defendant D.C. Bar properly removed this action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and that the Court has subject matter ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.