City of Dallas v. Lowe, 3:17-cv-00714

Defendant Sherri R. Lowe, proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of Appeal from a City of Dallas hearing officer’s decision; the notice was treated as a removal to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Lowe paid the federal filing fee but the magistrate judge issued an order requiring her to show the basis for federal jurisdiction; she filed a response asserting federal-question jurisdiction.
Lowe’s asserted federal basis: the hearing officer lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over property citations, resulting in fraud on the court and violations of her Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The magistrate judge recognized procedural defects in removal (possible removal after state proceeding concluded) but proceeded to analyze jurisdiction on the merits.
The court held that Lowe’s federal arguments are defenses or collateral attacks on the state proceeding’s jurisdiction and therefore do not appear as well-pleaded federal claims that would support removal.
Recommendation: the magistrate judge recommends sua sponte remand to state court for lack of federal-question jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists	Lowe: hearing officer lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, raising federal due-process and § 1983 issues	City: removal does not show a federal claim in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations (implicit)	Held: No federal-question jurisdiction; Lowe’s contentions are defenses/collateral attacks and do not create removal jurisdiction
Whether removal was timely/appropriate when state proceedings had concluded	Lowe: filed notice of appeal/removed to federal court	City: removal improper where state court judgment already entered (implicit)	Held: Magistrate noted possible procedural defect but assumed it non-jurisdictional and proceeded to remand on jurisdictional grounds
Whether a claim that a state tribunal lacked jurisdiction can itself create federal jurisdiction	Lowe: jurisdictional defect of hearing officer implicates federal law	City: such an argument is effectively a defense to the state action, not a well-pleaded federal cause of action	Held: A jurisdictional challenge to the state proceeding does not establish federal-question jurisdiction for removal
Whether remand is required where removing party fails to establish federal jurisdiction	Lowe: asserted federal issues in response to court’s show-cause order	City: removal burden on defendant to prove jurisdiction	Held: Remand recommended because defendant failed to carry the burden of showing federal jurisdiction

Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (federal courts must independently examine subject-matter jurisdiction)
Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (the well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal-question jurisdiction)
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on counterclaims)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (a federal defense does not support removal jurisdiction)
Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 145 F.3d 320 (federal question must appear on face of plaintiff’s complaint at time of removal)
Bernhard v. Whitney Nat’l Bank, 523 F.3d 546 (state-law claims may be removed only if they necessarily raise a federal issue or are completely preempted)
In re Hot-Hed, Inc., 477 F.3d 320 (removal statutes strictly construed; federal-question standard)
Miller v. Diamond Shamrock Co., 275 F.3d 414 (removing party bears burden of establishing jurisdiction)