Nahmod Law

 Where a defendant is sued initially in a state court under §1983, the choice arises of defending in the state court or removing the proceeding to federal court. This choice is given §1983 defendants by 28 U.S.C. §1441(b), which provides in relevant part that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.” The proper venue upon removal is to the district court “for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending” and the proper procedure for removal is set out in 28 U.S.C. §1446.

There may be circumstances where the removed plaintiff can return to state court. In Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988). the Supreme Court held that “a federal district court has discretion under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction to remand a properly removed case to state court when all federal-law claims in the action have been eliminated and only pendent state-law claims remain.”

But consider the Supreme Court’s important 2025 decision in Royal Canin USA Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, — (2025). In an opinion for a unanimous Court, Justice Kagan declared:

“What happens, if after removal, the plaintiff amends her complaint to delete all the federal-law claims, leaving nothing but state-law claims behind? May the federal court still adjudicate the now purely state-law suit? We hold that it may not. When an amendment excises the federal-law claims that enabled the removal, the federal court loses its supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims.”

Describing the case as requiring a “jurisdictional primer,” Justice Kagan observed that the plaintiff had filed her lawsuit originally in Missouri state court, alleging violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) as well as state statutory law. The defendant then removed to federal court, but because the plaintiff did not want it there, she deleted every mention of the FDCA in her amended complaint and petitioned the district court to remand to state court on the state law claims. The district court denied the petition, the Eighth Circuit reversed and the Court affirmed. It ruled that the possibility of supplemental jurisdiction “vanished” alongside the now absent federal law issues. This was consistent with the text of §1367: “With the loss of federal-question jurisdiction, the court loses as well its supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.”

The Court rejected the position of other circuits that the existence of subject matter jurisdiction is determined by examining the complaint at the time of removal. It further rejected the defendant’s contention that there was an exception “for when an amendment follows a lawsuit.” Instead, the Court emphasized that when the federal law issues disappear, the federal court no longer has power over the state law claims.

Royal Canin thus stands for the proposition that a court should look to the amended complaint to determine jurisdiction, whether in federal question cases or diversity cases. This provides potential §1983 plaintiffs who are deciding whether to file initially in federal or state court with an additional strategic option if they file in state court and the defendants remove to federal court. Much will depend on the relative strength of the § 1983 claims and the state law claims as well as on the remedies sought and against whom.

For considerably more discussion of removal in §1983 cases and related procedural matters, see Nahmod, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Litigation: The Law of Section 1983 ch. 1 (2024-25 Edition)(West/Westlaw).