Pines at Marston Lake, The v. Kingsford, 1:15-cv-02002

Defendant Jamie Kingsford, proceeding pro se, removed an unlawful detainer (eviction) action filed by The Pines at Marston Lake in Denver County Court to federal court.
Kingsford submitted a Notice of Removal, in forma pauperis application, the state complaint, her state-court answer, civil cover sheet, and summons.
The state complaint alleges breach of lease and seeks possession of the apartment; no federal claim appears on the face of the complaint.
Kingsford asserts federal-question grounds for removal, apparently relying on a federal defense based on protected-class membership.
The district court reviewed the removal papers under the liberal pro se standards but recognized the presumption against removal and placed the burden on the removing party to show federal jurisdiction.
The court concluded Kingsford failed to show a federal question or that a state-law claim necessarily raises a substantial federal issue and ordered summary remand to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal-question jurisdiction supports removal of the eviction action	The Pines: state unlawful detainer complaint raises only state-law claims	Kingsford: removal proper because she intends to raise a federal defense (membership in a protected class)	Remand — no federal question on the face of the complaint and a federal defense alone does not authorize removal
Whether a state-law claim implicates a substantial federal issue under Grable	N/A (Plaintiff relied on state-law claims)	Kingsford implied the case raises significant federal issues tied to civil-rights/protected-class protections	Court: no indication the state claim necessarily raises an actually disputed, substantial federal issue suitable for federal adjudication
Burden of proof for removal	Plaintiff: N/A	Kingsford: bears burden to demonstrate appropriateness of removal	Court applied presumption against removal and held Kingsford failed to meet burden
Effect of pro se status on review	N/A	Kingsford: pro se filings construed liberally	Court construed filings liberally but did not act as advocate and still required jurisdictional showing; remand ordered

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (courts must construe pro se filings liberally but not act as advocate)
Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871 (10th Cir. 1995) (presumption against removal jurisdiction)
Topeka Housing Authority v. Johnson, 404 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2005) (removal is proper only when federal court would have original jurisdiction)
Baby C v. Price, [citation="138 F. App'x 81"] (10th Cir. 2005) (removing party bears the burden to show removal appropriateness)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (federal question for removal normally must appear on face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint)
Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (state-law claim may be removed only if it necessarily raises a substantial, disputed federal issue)