Removing a Case to Federal Court

[bomatt]

My question involves injury or loss that occurred in the state of: Alabama.

I filed in state court a claim of malicious prosecution and violation of 42 USC 1983. The defendant filed a motion to remove it to Federal Court because of the federal issue.

Is there any advantage or disadvantage of having it brought to Federal court as opposed to state court on the issues?

[KeyWestDan]

You filed? Does that mean you are pro se? If you have an attorney, you'd be asking the attorney i guess.

You do not say WHO you are suing. I mean, what their positions are. If you are suing people with immunity, you will have a hard time.

Of course, if you raised a federal claim, then it will be removed to federal court. You could have framed the federal claim to be heard in state court actually; though most people don't know that. You could dismiss the federal claim and keep it in state court too. I suppose it depends on which claim is the most important and which one you are most likely to prove. Also if either one has problems with statute of limitations or affirmative defenses, like immunity that may tip the balance.

The state claim will be heard in federal court, but it will still be based on state law. The procedural issues of course will be based on federal rules of civil procedure.

Yes, lawyers might dress nicer in federal court, but you will not see any of them very often. U.S. District Court will rule on the pleadings, motions with briefs and other things WITHOUT oral argument. You will usually get oral arguments on motions in state court, but not as often, if at all, in federal court. This may or may not be an issue.

You will find differences in rules, evidence admission and some other things, so you will need to be on your toes and do lots of research. Pleading a 1983 action is also tricky, so unless you did it exactly right, it court get dismissed and your remaing case will get kicked back to state court to start all over.

[Mr. Knowitall]

Should we infer that you're not represented by a lawyer? The federal court system tends to work faster and has a reputation for being harder for self-represented people to navigate. Also, sometimes the federal court will split the case, entertaining only the federal issues and leaving the plaintiff in the position of having to decide whether or not it's worth trying to litigate the remaining issues in state court. If there are valid grounds for removal - the litigation is only over a federal issue or there's complete diversity of citizenship with a sufficient damages claim, it's less an issue of "advantage or disadvantage" - odds are it's going to happen.

Look for a pro se handbook for the court in which you're litigating.

[bomatt]

Yes, I filed it myself. The Alabama rules are modeled after the federal rules so there should be no dis/advantage there. The only advantage to them is that they are claiming '11th circuit Heightened Pleading Requirement' for qualified immunity cases. The disadvantage to them is that I can move for attorney fees if I get an attorney.