Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 435.0

524US2

Unit: $U91

[09-06-00 17:16:26] PAGES PGT: OPIN

390 WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. SCHACHT

Opinion of the Court

Henry, 922 F. 2d, at 338–339; Roberts v. College of the Desert,
870 F. 2d 1411, 1415 (CA9 1988). Cf. Pennhurst, supra, at
121 (suggesting that courts must analyze the applicability of
the Eleventh Amendment to each claim rather than case as
whole). Since a federal court would have original jurisdic-
tion to hear this case had Schacht originally ﬁled it there,
the defendants may remove the case from state to federal
courts. See § 1441(a).

Other considerations further undermine the analogy. For
example, for purposes of removal jurisdiction, we are to look
at the case as of the time it was ﬁled in state court—prior
to the time the defendants ﬁled their answer in federal court.
See, e. g., St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.,
303 U. S. 283, 291 (1938) (“[T]he status of the case as dis-
closed by the plaintiff ’s complaint is controlling in the case
of a removal, since the defendant must ﬁle his petition before
the time for answer or forever lose his right to remove”).
As of that time, a case that involved “incomplete diversity”
automatically would have fallen outside the federal courts’
“original jurisdiction.” By contrast, as of that time, the
State’s participation as a defendant would not automatically
have placed the case outside the federal courts’ jurisdictional
authority. That is because the underlying relevant condi-
tion (the federal courts’ effort to assert jurisdiction over an
objecting State) could not have existed prior to removal, see,
e. g., Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U. S. 1, 9, n. 7 (1980), and be-
cause the State might not have asserted the defense in fed-
eral court, but could have decided instead to defend on the
merits.
(Here, for example, the State, while not waiving its
Eleventh Amendment defense, has asserted in the alterna-
tive that Schacht could not state a § 1983 claim against the
State. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S.
58, 64 (1989).)

These differences between “diversity” and “Eleventh
Amendment” cases with respect to original and removal ju-
risdiction are sufﬁcient to destroy the analogy upon which