The state court matter that Northern has attempted to remove to this Court 1

is a criminal matter, not a civil matter, and does not appear, from the face of

pleadings filed in this case, to be a criminal matter removable under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1446, nor has Northern set forth any grounds for removal of the state court

criminal action.

Report and Recommendation

Subject Matter Jurisdiction 1 Northern v. Courtright; 09-11555

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CARLTON BRUCE NORTHERN, Case No. 09-11555

Plaintiff, John Feikens

vs. United States District Judge

FELICIA M. COURTRIGHT, Michael Hluchaniuk

MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL United States Magistrate Judge

CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 21, 2009, plaintiff, Carlton Bruce Northern (Northern), filed notice

of removal from Wayne County Circuit Court of Case No. 08064091-01 and “all

1

Related cases.” (Dkt. 1). It appears that Northern is a defendant in a child-support

related action and is attempting to remove that case or cases, to federal court. 

While Northern appears to be a defendant in the state court action, he refers to

2:09-cv-11555-JF-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 61
Report and Recommendation

Subject Matter Jurisdiction 2 Northern v. Courtright; 09-11555

himself as the “counter-plaintiff” in this case and purports to sue Felicia M.

Courtright, an assistant Michigan Attorney General and the Michigan Attorney

General Child Support Division. Northern was ordered to show cause why this

matter should not be dismissed or remanded to state court for failure to file a

timely notice of removal, for failure to attach all state court pleadings, and for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction, either based on diversity or a proper federal

question. (Dkt. 4). Northern filed a response to the order to show cause on

August 21, 2009. (Dkt. 5). This matter is now ready for report and

recommendation.

For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED that this matter be

DISMISSED for want of subject matter jurisdiction. 

II. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

“[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to investigate and police

the boundaries of their own jurisdiction.” Douglas v. E.G. Baldwin & Assocs.,

Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 607 (6th Cir.1998). The removing party has the burden of

proving that the federal district court has jurisdiction. Alexander v. Elec. Data

Sys. Corp., 13 F.3d 940, 949 (6th Cir. 1994). This burden is a difficult one to

overcome; removal statutes are “strictly construed,” and any ambiguities “must be

resolve[d] ... in favor of the nonremoving party.” Id. “If the court determines at

2:09-cv-11555-JF-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 62
Report and Recommendation

Subject Matter Jurisdiction 3 Northern v. Courtright; 09-11555

any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the

action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737

(1976). Further, “‘defects in subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the

parties and may be addressed by a court on its own motion at any stage of the

proceedings.’” Fowlkes v. Nat’l Archive and Record Adm., 2006 WL 3545105, *3

(S.D. Ohio 2006), quoting, Owens v. Brock, 860 F.2d 1363, 1367 (6th Cir. 1988).

A notice of removal of a state court action must be filed in the district court

within 30 days after receipt by the defendant of the initial pleading, usually the

complaint, that was filed in the state court action. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). It is

unclear from Northern’s notice of removal when the state court action was filed. 

However, according to the docket of events obtained from Wayne County Circuit

Court, plaintiff was arraigned on January 9, 2009, found guilty by a jury on

September 14, 2009, and his sentencing is scheduled for October 27, 2009. 

Additionally, a valid notice of removal requires that copies of “all process,

pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant” must be attached to the notice

of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). No state court pleadings were included with the

notice of removal filed in this Court.

In response to the order to show cause, Northern asserts a host of

nonsensical claims, including that “[t]his court has the jurisdiction to review

2:09-cv-11555-JF-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 63
Report and Recommendation

Subject Matter Jurisdiction 4 Northern v. Courtright; 09-11555

Carlton Bruce Northern's use of, and his right to use the administrative process to

require a party making a claim against him to fulfill his/her obligation under the

Administrative Procedures Act by entering into the Record of the Court claiming

jurisdiction, a cross-claim, by affidavit, in answer to Counter-claim made by

Affidavit of Answers and Denials which demands that persons making a claim

against him provide proof of claim and which rebuts categorically and on a point

for point basis each assertion made by Carlton Bruce Northern.” In response to

the specific requirements of the order to show cause, Northern states as follows:

A. The State case alleges that Carlton Bruce Northern

is a debtor of the defendants.

B. A request for State court pleadings was denied. A

Register of Actions was obtained and attached to

this case filing.

C. This case is filed to determine that the claimant is

a creditor if no jurisdiction exists after a

jurisdictional challenge is raised and no response

is made shows that the respondents have agreed

that they do not have a claim against Carlton

Bruce Northern and do not have subject matter

jurisdiction to proceed in a court action where the

alleged defendant files:

1. An objection to subject matter jurisdiction

2. A counter-claim

3. An Affidavit of answers and denials

The party that claims jurisdiction has an obligation to file

2:09-cv-11555-JF-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 64
Report and Recommendation

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

5 Northern v. Courtright; 09-11555

a cross-claim in rebuttal to the Affidavit of answers and

denials and is collaterally estopped from proceeding

pending their filing of an affidavit of cross-claim.

No cross-claim was made and the defendants make a

waiver of sovereignty and appear before this court in

their private capacities.

Carlton Bruce Northern is irreparably harmed because

the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act were

not followed by the defendants.

Carlton Bruce Northern has exhausted all administrative

remedies.

There is no controversy before this court.

There is a stipulation to all facts by all parties.

Defendants had knowledge of the law and of their

requirement to rebut the claims made in Carlton Bruce

Northern’s Affidavit of Answers and Denials.

A Notary Public, in good standing, has Certified the

Certificate of Dishonor, and failure to respond to the

challenge to subject matter jurisdiction made by Carlton

Bruce Northern both viva voce and by Affidavit of

Answers and Denials filed with the court and served on

and posted by US Postal Services employees to the

Defendants.

This court is being asked to review the administrative

procedures used by the complaining party of this case

relating to the failure of the complaining parties in a state

court proceeding to respond to a challenge to subject

matter jurisdiction made by Carlton Bruce Northern and

filed into the Wayne County Circuit Court on June 9,

2:09-cv-11555-JF-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 65
Report and Recommendation

Subject Matter Jurisdiction 6 Northern v. Courtright; 09-11555

2009.

Once jurisdiction is challenged it must be proven and

ceases to exist.

Proof of jurisdiction must exist on the record.

(Dkt. 5). 

Northern offers no evidence that the notice of removal of a state court action

was filed in the district court within 30 days of his arraignment as required by 28

U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1). Northern also failed to comply with or correct his failure to

file “all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant” along with the

notice of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). For these reasons, the undersigned

suggests that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Northern’s

complaint and that this matter should dismissed.

III. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that this matter be

DISMISSED for want of subject matter jurisdiction. 

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 10 days of service,

as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.1(d)(2). Failure to file

specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v.

2:09-cv-11555-JF-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 66
Report and Recommendation

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

7 Northern v. Courtright; 09-11555

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d

505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some issues but fail to raise others

with specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this

Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 931

F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829

F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), any

objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.

Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No. 2,”

etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 10 days after service of an

objection, the opposing party must file a concise response proportionate to the

objections in length and complexity. The response must specifically address each

issue raised in the objections, in the same order, and labeled as “Response to

Objection No. 1,” “Response to Objection No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that

any objections are without merit, it may rule without awaiting the response. 

s/Michael Hluchaniuk 

Date: October 23, 2009 Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

2:09-cv-11555-JF-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 67
Report and Recommendation

Subject Matter Jurisdiction 8 Northern v. Courtright; 09-11555

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on October 23, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, and I certify that I have mailed

by United States Postal Service the paper to the following non-ECF participant(s):

Carlton Bruce Northern, c/o 19240 Lumpkin, Detroit, MI 48234.

s/James P. Peltier 

Courtroom Deputy Clerk

U.S. District Court

600 Church Street

Flint, MI 48502

(810) 341-7850

pete_peltier@mied.uscourts.gov

2:09-cv-11555-JF-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 68