Pohl v. Alford et al, No. 9:2008cv00170 - Document 13 (E.D. Tex. 2008)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION that thepla's objections are overruled and the report of the Magistrate Judge is adopted as the opinion of the District Court. The above styled civil action is hereby REMANDED to the 258th Judicial District Court of Polk County, Tx for such other and further proceedings as that Court may deem proper. All motions currently pending in this case are hereby denied without prejudice to their being refiled in the course of the state court proceedings. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 10/16/08. (djh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION PHILIP J. POHL § v. § RICHARD K. ALFORD § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:08cv170 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND The Plaintiff Philip Pohl, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit in the 258th Judicial District Court of Polk County, Texas, complaining of alleged violations of his rights. On August 28, 2008, Pohl filed a notice of removal, seeking to remove the lawsuit to federal court. This Court ordered that the case be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. Pohl argued that the issues presented in his state court lawsuit also implicated federal law. After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the case be remanded to the state court. The Magistrate Judge observed that the removal of cases from state court to federal court is a privilege reserved to defendants, and that Pohl, as the plaintiff in the statecourt case, could not remove his own lawsuit to federal court. Pohl filed objections to the Magistrate Judge s Report on September 18, 2008. In his objections, Pohl states that he had the belief that the removal procedure was allowed to anyone with unjust results before a state tribunal. As the Magistrate Judge correctly set out, this is not correct; removal of a state court lawsuit may only be done by the defendant in that lawsuit. Pohl appears to believe that the removal procedure is in effect a substitute for an appeal from an adverse ruling in state court to the federal district court, which is also improper; the Fifth Circuit has held that litigants may not obtain review of state court actions by filing complaints about those actions in lower federal 1 courts, cast in the form of civil rights lawsuits. Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 690-91 (5th Cir. 1986). Judicial errors committed in state courts are for correction in state court systems, at the head of which stands the United States Supreme Court; such errors are no business of the lower federal courts. Hale, 786 F.2d at 691. If Pohl is dissatisfied with the results which he has achieved in the Texas state courts, his proper avenue of redress was with the state appellate court system, not the federal district courts. Pohl s objections are without merit. The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the pleadings and documents in this case, including the Plaintiff s notice of removal and state court complaint, the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Plaintiff s objections thereto, and all other pleadings, documents, and records in the case. Upon such de novo review, the Court has concluded that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and that the Plaintiff s objections are without merit. It is accordingly ORDERED that the Plaintiff s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled civil action be and hereby is REMANDED to the 258th Judicial District Court of Polk County, Texas, for such other and further proceedings as that Court may deem proper. Finally, it is ORDERED that all motions currently pending in this case are hereby DENIED without prejudice to their being refiled in the course of the state court proceedings. SIGNED this the 16 day of October, 2008. ____________________________ Thad Heartfield United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
