Mecca FA Investments LLC v. Johnson, 3:25-cv-02029

Mecca FA Investments LLC obtained a default judgment in Justice of the Peace Court (JPC-25-09430-11) in a residential eviction on July 23, 2025; post-judgment relief was denied July 31, 2025.
Defendant Keithean‑Greg Johnson (pro se) filed a notice of removal to federal court on Aug. 1, 2025, and sought to stay enforcement of the writ of possession.
Johnson invoked 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1443 and alleged civil‑rights and due‑process violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983 and other federal provisions; his filing included sovereign‑citizen style trust claims.
The notice of removal did not include the state petition or docket sheet as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446 and Local Civil Rule 81.1; county records show no removal filing in the JP court.
The magistrate judge reviewed jurisdiction sua sponte and concluded Johnson failed to establish federal question or diversity jurisdiction and that § 1443 did not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal question jurisdiction exists over the eviction	Mecca: state eviction only; no federal question alleged	Johnson: asserts federal civil‑rights violations and Supremacy/ trust claims	No — Johnson failed to show a federal question appearing on the face of the state petition or existing at time of removal
Whether diversity jurisdiction exists	Mecca: contest removal; state forum	Johnson: did not plausibly allege complete diversity or amount > $75,000	No — citizenship of LLC members not alleged, amount not shown, and defendant is a Texas citizen (forum‑defendant rule)
Whether removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) (race‑based civil rights) applies	Mecca: § 1443 inapplicable	Johnson: claimed broad civil‑rights and discrimination violations	No — § 1443(1) requires denial of race‑based civil rights; allegations were non‑racial and generalized
Whether § 1443(2) (federal officers) applies	Mecca: inapplicable	Johnson: did not claim federal officer status or authorization	No — Johnson neither alleged nor fits the class protected by § 1443(2)

Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (court must ensure subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (federal defense does not create federal jurisdiction)
Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (same—federal defense inadequate for jurisdiction)
Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254 (basis for jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged)
Gutierrez v. Flores, 543 F.3d 248 (well‑pleaded complaint rule for removal)
Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 145 F.3d 320 (federal question must be present at time of removal)
Miller v. Diamond Shamrock Co., 275 F.3d 414 (removing party bears burden of establishing jurisdiction)
Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362 (federal jurisdiction must be located in plaintiff’s complaint)
Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077 (LLC citizenship depends on members’ citizenship)
City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (limits on § 1443 removals for federal officers)
Williams v. Nichols, 464 F.2d 563 (§ 1443(1) requires race‑based civil rights claim)
Smith v. Winter, 717 F.2d 191 (broad constitutional claims do not satisfy § 1443 test)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (requirement and effect of filing specific objections to R&R)