State of Texas v. Goffney
Filing
8
ORDER OF REMAND entered GRANTING 2 MOTION to Remand. Case terminated on 3/2/12. This case is remanded to the 351st Judicial District of Harris County, Texas. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
STATE OF TEXAS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
MICHAEL LESLIE GOFFNEY,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-12-0467
ORDER OF REMAND
In accordance with the ruling stated in open court, the motion to remand is granted. The action was
removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) (“any person acting under” a federal officer may remove). The
defendant, an employee of a private contractor working at a federal facility, failed to make the showing
necessary for federal removal jurisdiction under this provision because there was no basis to find that a
federal officer had direct and detailed control over the defendant such that the acts that form the basis for the
suit were performed pursuant to the officer’s direct orders or to comprehensive and detailed regulations. See
Williams v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 154 F.3d 416, 1998 WL 526612, at *4 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)
(“detailed supervision and/or direction by a federal official or authority is sufficient to satisfy the causal
nexus prong”); McGee v. Arkel Int’l, LLC, 716 F. Supp. 2d 572, 574 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (“The federal officer
must have ‘direct and detailed control over the defendant’ such that ‘the acts that form the basis for the suit
were performed pursuant to an officer’s direct orders or to comprehensive and detailed regulations.’” (quoting
Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co., 781 F. Supp. 934, 947 (E.D.N.Y. 1992))).
This action is remanded to the 351st Judicial District of Harris County, Texas.
SIGNED on March 2, 2012, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
