Case: 1:12-cv-01063 Document #: 5 Filed: 03/14/12 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #:19 rict of Illinois United States District Court, Northern =e |e Serie CASE NUMBER 12.C 1063 DATE March 14, 2012 CASE Jason M. Gonzalez (#2009-0008062) v. Saad Noah TITLE DOCKET ENTRY TEXT: i There being no basis for removal, this case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Will County. Hi_[For further details see text below.) Docketing to mail m —— STATEMENT Saad Noah, the Defendant in a Will County Circuit Court suit, Gonzalez v. Noah, No. 11 SC 6508, has filed a notice removing that case to this court. Defendant Noah and Plaintiff Jason Gonzalez are inmates in the Will County Detention Facility. In this lawsuit, Gonzalez brings state law claims of conversion and defamation against Noah. Specifically, he claims that Noah accessed a computer at the facility and opened a file that contained a letter Gonzalez had written to his attorney, and then attempted to mail a copy of that fetter to local _> | news agencies. Gonzalez claims damages in the amount of 51,000 eS 5 filed |< counterclaims against Gonzalez and third-party claims against a number of additional parties, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, immigration agents, the ambassador to Finland, as well as Governor Pat Quinn and current and former Will County Circuit Court judges. Noah contends that the newly added federal Defendants, render this case removable. Noah is incorrect. Removal cannot be based on a claim against a third-party defendant. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a case is removable only if federal jurisdiction exists when the case is initiated. When determining the existence of federal jurisdiction, this court follows the well-pleaded complaint rule, under which federal jurisdiction exists only if “the suit—as the plaintiff framed or easily could have framed it in the complaint—would have been within the district court's original jurisdiction at the time of the removal.” Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Elefant, 790 F.2d 661, 667 (7th Cir. 1986) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. v. Const. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983). In other words, the basis for federal jurisdiction must be presented in the original complaint, See 28 U.S.C. § 1441: Elefant, 790 F.2d at 667 The complaint filed by Gonzalez in state court presents only state-law claims of conversion and/or defamation. Noah's counterclaims and the addition of third-party Defendants, who appear unrelated to any claims Noah has against Gonzalez, cannot form the basis for federal jurisdiction to remove the state suit. Adkins v. Minois Central R. Co., 326 F.34 828, 835-36 (7th Cir.2003); see also 14C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3731 (3d ed.1998) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) authorizes removal by defendants only on the basis of claims brought against them and not on the basis of counterclaims asserted by them). Nor does the original complaint support diversity jurisdiction; Gonzalez seeks just $11,000 in damages, far less than the required $75,000 amount in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Accordingly, this case was improperly removed and must be remanded. Le eeeeEeESEeee__—=s—: isk