Phillips v. Layden, 434 F. App'x 774

Phillips, a pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, challenged Pittsburg County officials and a state judge in district court as to constitutional rights, federal statutes, and ADA claims.
She sought removal of related state property-dispute claims to federal court via her complaint, which the district court treated as a removal action.
The district court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim, and held the judge immune, making amendment futile.
The district court concluded § 1441(a) does not permit removal by plaintiffs and therefore dismissed the action in its entirety.
The panel held that, although the judge’s immunity disposed of the state-claim against him, the federal claims against the Sheriff and Undersheriff required evaluation, and the district court erred by not addressing them.
On review, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal was properly dismissed as to the state claims.	Phillips contends removal was permissible under federal law.	Defendants argue removal by a plaintiff is not authorized; thus dismissal was proper.	Removal by plaintiff improper; dismissed as to removal issue
Whether Judge Layden enjoys judicial immunity from the claims.	Claims against Layden should proceed as presented.	Judge Layden is entitled to judicial immunity for official adjudicative acts.	Lawyer immunity shields Layden; claims against him dismissed
Whether the district court must evaluate the federal claims against the Sheriff and Undersheriff.	Federal claims against these defendants should be considered separate from the state claims.	The court did not address these federal claims adequately due to mischaracterizing the action.	The federal claims against Sheriff/Undersheriff must be evaluated
Whether the case should be remanded to address unconsidered federal claims.	The district court should consider all claims, including federal ones.	Amendment would be futile only as to the removed claims against Layden.	Remand appropriate to address unconsidered federal claims

Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 1999) (de novo review; futility standard for 1915(e)(2) dismissal)
Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 1997) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
Lundahl v. Zimmer, 296 F.3d 936 (10th Cir. 2002) (judicial immunity; standard for official acts)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court 1978) (immunity for judges acting within jurisdiction)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (liberal construction of pro se complaints and need to show possible meritorious claim)