Barber v. Miller

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
CONSOLATION BARBER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHEENA MILLER,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:23-cv-00018-SLG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT
On January 20, 2023, self-represented litigant Sheena Miller (“Defendant”)
filed a Notice of Removal from Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial
District at Anchorage, Case No. 3AN-22-9606CI.1 She also filed a civil cover sheet
and an application to waive the filing fee.2 On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff
Consolation Barber (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Remand to State Court.3 As of the
date of this order, Defendant has not replied to Plaintiff’s motion, and her deadline
to do so has passed.4 For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s Motion is
GRANTED.
1 Docket 1.
2 Dockets 2-3.
3 Docket 6.
4 See L.Civ.R. 7.2(b) (requiring opposition to the motion must be filed within 14 days of service).
Case 3:23-cv-00018-SLG Document 7 Filed 03/20/23 Page 1 of 5

Case No. 3:23-cv-00018-SLG, Barber v. Miller
Order Remanding to State Court
Page 2 of 5
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed an eviction action against Defendant in state court.5 The Court
takes judicial notice of Barber v. Miller, Case No. 3AN-22-09606CI.6 Defendant
filed a notice of removal and civil cover sheet asserting the Court has federal-
question jurisdiction.7 Defendant demands an “independent audit” of the state
court case, claims she may have overpaid Plaintiff, and she requests damages
for her pain and suffering.8 As a basis for federal-question jurisdiction, Defendant
cites to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1661-1693, which provide certain protections to consumers,
such as restrictions on garnishments and unfair debt collection practices.9
DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove a civil action brought
in a state court to a district court if the plaintiff(s) could have originally filed the
action in federal court.10 This statute “is strictly construed against removal
5 Docket 6-1.
6 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a
party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept such a fact.”
Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201 (a court can take judicial notice
of its own files and records.); Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3
(9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in another tribunal are appropriate for judicial
notice.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
7 Docket 2.
8 Docket 1 at 2.
9 See generally 15 U.S.C. §§ 1671-77, 1692-1692p.
10 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
Case 3:23-cv-00018-SLG Document 7 Filed 03/20/23 Page 2 of 5

Case No. 3:23-cv-00018-SLG, Barber v. Miller
Order Remanding to State Court
Page 3 of 5
jurisdiction,”11 and the party seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction.”12
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that
jurisdiction as authorized by the Constitution and federal statute.13 “Federal
jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the
first instance.”14 Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” jurisdiction is present
only when “a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly
pleaded complaint.”15 A defense or counterclaim based on federal law does not
give rise to federal question jurisdiction.16 If the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case must be remanded to state court.17
Having reviewed the filings and the publicly available state court information,
they do not demonstrate “either that federal law creates the cause of action or that
the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial
11 Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir.1988).
12 Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue
Shield v. Little Rock Cardiology Clinic, P.A., 551 F.3d 812, 816 (8th Cir. 2009) (“The burden of
establishing that a cause of action lies within the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts is on the
party asserting jurisdiction.”).
13 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
14 Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
15 Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).
16 Id.
17 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Case 3:23-cv-00018-SLG Document 7 Filed 03/20/23 Page 3 of 5

Case No. 3:23-cv-00018-SLG, Barber v. Miller
Order Remanding to State Court
Page 4 of 5
question of federal law.”18 Defendant’s assertions, which appear to be defenses
or counter-claims, do not confer subject matter jurisdiction in federal court19 To
the extent Defendant’s references to a “fair and impartial hearing” and
“independent audit” are attempts to appeal any orders by the state court, this Court
does not have appellate jurisdiction over state court proceedings.20 Further, while
the state court has issued a “Writ of Assistance” and a “Partial Judgment for
Possession and Costs,” as of the date of this order, the state case is still
“undisposed.”21
For the reasons set forth above, this matter shall be remanded to the state
court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court is GRANTED.
2. All pending Motions and Orders are DISMISSED AS MOOT.
18 Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983).
19 See Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a
state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court.”).
20 Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (establishing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine that federal district
courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a state court).
21 Barber v. Miller, Case No. 3AN-22-09606CI, Docket Information (“Case Status: Open”),
available at https://courts.alaska.gov/main/search-cases.htm (last visited March 16, 2023).
Case 3:23-cv-00018-SLG Document 7 Filed 03/20/23 Page 4 of 5

Case No. 3:23-cv-00018-SLG, Barber v. Miller
Order Remanding to State Court
Page 5 of 5
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to REMAND this action to the Superior
Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage.
DATED this 20th day of March 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:23-cv-00018-SLG Document 7 Filed 03/20/23 Page 5 of 5