Taylor et al v. Walmart Inc.

Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EUSEBIO TAYLOR &
DRAPHY TAYLOR,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WALMART INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-CV-00097-SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
McGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court for consideration of a Motion to Dismiss
filed by Defendant Walmart Inc. (Doc. 11). Having been fully informed of the issues
presented, Walmart’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot and this case is
REMANDED to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in St. Clair
County, Illinois.
R ELEVANT FACTUAL A ND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND
The instant matter involves a case of mistaken identity. Pro se Plaintiffs
Eusebio and Draphy Taylor allege that they were accused of shoplifting by employees
at the Walmart store located at 1556 W. U.S. Highway 50 in O’Fallon, Illinois on
October 20, 2025. (Doc. 1, Ex. A, ¶¶ 7, 9). They allege that Walmart employees
erroneously identified them based on security camera footage. (Id., Ex. A, ¶ 9). They
brought the instant case in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in St.
Clair County, Illinois on December 19, 2025. (Id., Ex. A; see Taylor v. Walmart, No.
2025LA1512 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Jan. 22, 2026)). Their Complaint alleges eight causes of
Case 3:26-cv-00097-SPM Document 24 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 5
action against Walmart including false imprisonment, defamation per se, negligence,
negligent supervision and training, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
racial discrimination, and sought punitive damages. (Id., Ex. A).
Walmart removed this case to federal court on January 28, 2206 (id.) and filed
and Answer to Counts I and II and a Motion to Dismiss Counts III through VIII on
February 2, 2026 (Docs. 11, 13). The Taylors filed a Response in Opposition on
February 16, 2026. (Doc. 20). Walmart filed a Reply on March 3, 2026. (Doc. 23).
If this were the entire procedural history of this case, this would be a run-of-
the-mill analysis pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). However, the
Taylors wrote in their Response that their state court case was dismissed without
prejudice and closed before they could amend their pleadings. (Doc. 20, p. 1).
Apparently, Walmart was unaware on January 28, 2026 when it removed this case
that it had been dismissed without prejudice on January 22, 2026. See Taylor v.
Walmart, No. 2025LA1512 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Jan. 22, 2026). In its Reply, Walmart wishes
to dismiss this case “[b]ecause there was no pending civil action in the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit of St. Clair County at the time this matter was inadvertently
removed.” (Doc. 23, p. 1).
A PPLICABLE LAW A ND LEGAL S TANDARDS
Federal 	courts 	are 	courts 	of 	limited 	jurisdiction. 	Exxon 	Mobil 	Corp. 	v.
Allapatthah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). Removal is governed by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441, which provides, in pertinent part, that “any civil action brought in a State
court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may
Case 3:26-cv-00097-SPM Document 24 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 5
be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United
States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Pooter v. Janus Inv. Fund, 483 F. Supp. 2d 692, 694–95
(S.D. Ill. 2007). In other words, “[a] defendant may remove a case to federal court only
if the federal district court would have original subject matter jurisdiction over the
action.” Kitson v. Bank of Edwardsville, No. 06-528, 2006 WL 3392752, at *1 (S.D. Ill.
Nov. 22, 2006).
“‘Courts should interpret the removal statute narrowly and presume that the
plaintiff may choose his or her forum.’ Put another way, there is a strong presumption
in favor of remand.” Fuller v. BNSF Ry. Co., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1091 (S.D. Ill.
2007) (quoting Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993)). “Doubts
concerning removal must be resolved in favor of remand to the state court.” Alsup v.
3-Day Blinds, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 838, 841 (S.D. Ill. 2006).
A NALYSIS
The 	order 	from 	Judge 	Christopher 	Kolker 	of 	the 	Circuit 	Court 	for 	the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit dismissed the Plaintiffs’ state court case without prejudice
due to failure to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 and 725 I LL . COMP .
STAT . 5/2-603. Taylor v. Walmart, No. 2025LA1512 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Jan. 22, 2026); (see
Doc. 23, Ex. A). The Plaintiffs were not provided leave to amend. See Taylor, No.
2025LA1512; (Doc. 23, Ex. A). The docket sheet records their case as “closed” as of
January 	22, 	2026. 	See 	St. 	Clair 	County 	Circuit 	Clerk, 	S T . CLAIR C NTY ., I LL .
https://www.co.st-clair.il.us/departments/circuit-clerk (last visited March 3, 2026)
(navigate to “Court Record Search,” then search for No. 2025LA1512).
Case 3:26-cv-00097-SPM Document 24 Filed 03/10/26 Page 3 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 5
28 U.S.C. § 1441 states that
Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil
action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United
States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or
the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district
and division embracing the place where such action is pending.
Note the last word – “pending.” This means that the case to be removed must be an
active, open case in state court. That is not true here, meaning that Walmart’s Notice
of Removal was improper and does not comport with the requirements of § 1441.
The Taylors indicated that they intended to amend and refile their pleadings
in state court. (Doc. 20, p. 1). While they do not seek remand of the case, their
Response in Opposition to Walmart’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) was filed within
thirty 	days 	of 	Walmart’s 	Notice 	of 	Removal 	(Doc. 	1), 	meeting 	the 	thirty-day
requirement provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Recall that “[a] document filed pro se is
‘to be liberally construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must
be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
106 (1976)); see also Buechel v. United States, 746 F.3d 753, 758 (7th Cir. 2014).
Indeed, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(f) states that “[a]ll pleadings shall be so
construed as to do substantial justice.” “Moreover, ‘[a] litigant who appears pro se
should not be treated more harshly for negligent errors than one represented by an
attorney. Otherwise, only those wealthy enough to be able to afford an attorney would
be able to insulate themselves from the consequences of an occasional human
Case 3:26-cv-00097-SPM Document 24 Filed 03/10/26 Page 4 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 5
error . . . .’” Sanders v. Melvin, 25 F.4th 475 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting Schilling v.
Walworth Cnty. Park & Plan. Comm’n, 805 F.2d 272, 277 n.8 (7th Cir. 1986)).
Considering the above and without commenting on the merits of this case, this
Court construes the Taylors’ Response in Opposition (Doc. 20) to indicate that the
Plaintiffs wish to proceed in state court. As discussed supra, “[d]oubts concerning
removal must be resolved in favor of remand to the state court.” Alsup v. 3-Day
Blinds, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 838, 841 (S.D. Ill. 2006). Therefore, this case shall be
remanded. Because this Court is bereft of jurisdiction, Walmart’s pending Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 11) shall be denied as moot.
C ONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Walmart Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 11) is DENIED as moot. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for
the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in St. Clair County, Illinois.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 10, 2026
s/ Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. McGLYNN
U.S. District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00097-SPM Document 24 Filed 03/10/26 Page 5 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>