Poblete v. U.S. Marshals Service
253 F. Supp. 3d 115
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff Luis Ivan Poblete, proceeding pro se, sued the U.S. Marshals Service, two D.C. Superior Court judges, and a D.C. law firm after an earlier foreclosure action against him.
- The earlier foreclosure case was removed to federal court and later dismissed as moot.
- Poblete filed a "Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition" claiming the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction, invoking common law and 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and alleging fraud, breach of public trust, and other extreme misconduct by judges and others.
- The United States removed the new suit to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442; defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and argued lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the claims were "patently insubstantial."
- Poblete did not oppose defendants’ motions. The court addressed a jurisdictional question novel to the parties: whether the "patently insubstantial" exception bars federal jurisdiction for cases removed by federal agencies under § 1442.
- The court concluded it had jurisdiction despite the insubstantial nature of the claims and dismissed the complaint on the merits for failing to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the claims are "patently insubstantial" | Poblete alleges federal-law grounds (mandamus/prohibition) showing a federal question; claims assert jurisdictional defects of state court | Defendants contend the claims are so insubstantial/frivolous that they do not present a federal question and jurisdiction is lacking | Court held § 1442 removal by a federal agency supplies independent jurisdiction; the "patently insubstantial" doctrine does not defeat subject-matter jurisdiction here |
| Whether the complaint states a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) | Poblete alleges judges and others committed fraud, treason, and acted without jurisdiction; seeks relief to halt enforcement | Defendants argue the pleading is unintelligible, legally baseless, and barred by doctrines like judicial immunity; removal doesn't create actionable claims | Court dismissed for failure to state a claim: pleading is incoherent, alleges no actionable facts, judges have immunity, and foreclosure issues are moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328 (D.C. Cir.) (discussing the "patently insubstantial" doctrine)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1954) (frivolous federal claims may lack Article III jurisdiction)
- Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (1969) (Congressional policy favoring federal forum for federal defendants; § 1442 removal rationale)
- Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (1989) (§ 1442 confers jurisdiction regardless of whether case could originally be brought in federal court)
- Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 (1983) (scope of "arising under" jurisdiction under Article III)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal of legally baseless claims)
- Atherton v. D.C. Office of Mayor, 567 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir.) (judicial immunity bars certain damages claims)
- Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 738 (1824) (federal jurisdiction principles)