Pearson v. Commercial Bank of Ozark (Dale County CA CV-2010-32), 1:12-cv-00015

Lorenzo and Clarissa Pearson, pro se, filed two in forma pauperis motions in this federal case.
Pearsons removed their pending state-court action against Commercial Bank of Ozark and Larry Ezell to federal court.
The court must apply a two-step §1915 analysis: check economic eligibility, then screen the complaint for frivolity or failure to state a claim.
Removal was contested because Pearson is the plaintiff in the underlying action, not a defendant, raising questions about proper removal under §1441(a).
The court concludes the removal is frivolous and that §1441(a) limits removal to defendants, not plaintiffs.
The action is remanded to the Circuit Court of Dale County and the case is closed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper removal under §1441(a)?	Pearson asserts federal-question jurisdiction as a defense to state proceedings.	Removal statutes authorize defendants, not plaintiffs, to remove.	Removal improper; remand required.
Economic eligibility under §1915(a)(1)?	Motions satisfy economic eligibility criteria for proceeding in forma pauperis.	Not at issue; eligibility is satisfied but ancillary to remand decision.	Economic eligibility satisfied; not controlling for remand.
Remand vs. dismissal?	Federal court should adjudicate merits if properly removed.	Court should remand since removal was improper and lacks federal question.	This case is remanded to state court; disposition of merits remains in state court.

Woodall v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268 (5th Cir. 1981) (two-step §1915 screening procedure)
Procup v. Strickland, 760 F.2d 1107 (11th Cir. 1985) (procedural framework for §1915)
Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (adopted former Fifth Circuit law as binding precedent)
Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (Supreme Court 1941) (strict construction of removal statute §1441(a))