IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

AMON RICHARDS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:21cv58-MW/MJF

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 4, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections 

to the report and recommendation, ECF No. 10. This Court has also considered 

Plaintiff’s Motion in Opposition of Removal of Case—effectively, a motion to 

remand—ECF No. 7. 

As a general rule, this Court should take up a motion to remand prior to 

transferring venue, because “[d]eterminations of subject matter jurisdiction are 

preeminent.” Montgomery Kidney Specialists, LLP v. Physicians Choice Dialysis of 

Ala., LLC, No. 2:17-cv-668-ECM, 2020 WL 570137, *1 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 5, 2020) 

(discussing priority of competing motions to remand and to transfer venue). And 

Case 4:21-cv-00058-MW-MJF Document 11 Filed 02/19/21 Page 1 of 3
2

once Defendants file their notice of removal, the case proceeds no further in state 

court, the state court loses all jurisdiction, and any subsequent proceedings in the 

state court prior to any remand are void. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, 

Puerto Rico v. Acevedo Feliciano, 140 S.Ct. 696, 700 (2020). 

Here, Plaintiff asserts that while Defendants may have properly removed his 

first amended complaint based on the federal jurisdiction over his Eighth 

Amendment claim, he has since filed a second amended complaint in state court that 

has dropped the federal claim. However, Plaintiff has not sought leave to file this 

amended pleading in this Court. Should Plaintiff seek leave to file an amended 

pleading that disposes of all federal claims early in this proceeding, this Court—or 

the Middle District of Florida, as this case is being transferred—may choose either

to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims 

or it may not. See, e.g., Shelley v. City of Headland, et al., No. 1:09-cv-509-WKW, 

2009 WL 2171898, *1 (M.D. Ala. July 21, 2009) (remanding remaining state-law 

claims after Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed federal claim, despite Defendants’ 

argument that this constituted “blatant forum shopping”). But until that time, only 

this Court has jurisdiction to hear his claims. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, over Plaintiff’s

objections, as this Court’s opinion. This case shall be transferred to the Fort Myers 

Case 4:21-cv-00058-MW-MJF Document 11 Filed 02/19/21 Page 2 of 3
3

Division of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Opposition of Removal of Case, construed as a motion to 

remand, ECF No. 7, is DENIED. The Clerk shall terminate, for purposes of this 

Court’s docket, Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, and Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants, ECF No. 9. These motions 

remain pending upon transfer to the Middle District of Florida. The Clerk shall take 

all steps necessary to effect the transfer and close the file.

SO ORDERED on February 19, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:21-cv-00058-MW-MJF Document 11 Filed 02/19/21 Page 3 of 3