Yarbrough v. City of Webb City et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
BENJAMIN MICHAEL YARBROUGH, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 3:25-cv-5069-MDH
)
)
JEANNE BROCKMAN, Records Officer 	)
CHIEF DON MELTON, Police Chief 	)
OFFICER TYLER WINTERS, 	)
Transporting Officer 	)
OFFICER ADAM MORRIS (#427), 	)
Arresting Officer 	)
OFFICER WATTS, Transporting Officer 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
In the present case, Mr. Yarbrough filed for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which the
Court granted. (Doc. 3). His Notice of Removal listed 6 cases where he was the defendant in
municipal court that were subject to removal. The claims against him range from expired plates
and operating a vehicle without maintaining financial responsibility, to resisting arrest. Notably,
no claim in that court arose under federal law or met diversity jurisdiction. As a basis for removal
he cited Constitutional claims, civil rights violations, and federal statutes. Attached to his Notice
of Removal was a Statement of Claim bringing claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and
1986, along with 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 and constitutional claims under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th,
and 14th Amendments. Construing the pro se party’s pleadings liberally, and alleging federal
violations, the Court granted him leave to file in forma pauperis. Mr. Yarbrough later filed an
amended complaint containing 7 claims:
Case 3:25-cv-05069-MDH Document 40 Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Count I – Fourth Amendment (Unlawful Seizure); Count II – Fourteenth
Amendment (Due Process); Count III – Civil Rights Violation (42 U.S.C. §
1983); Count IV – Civil Rights Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985); Count V –
Failure to Prevent Violations (42 U.S.C. § 1986); Count VI – Obstruction of
Justice and Fraud Upon the Court; Count VII – Denial of Access to Public
Records
(Doc. 11).
Upon further review of the entire record, the Court finds that removal was improper and it
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
Generally, “[a] civil case commenced in state court may ... be removed by the defendant to
federal district court, if the case could have been brought there originally.” Convent Corp. v. City
of N. Little Rock, Ark., 784 F.3d 479, 483 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing Martin v. Franklin Capital
Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 134, 126 S.Ct. 704, 163 L.Ed.2d 547 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441)). In
Mr. Yarbrough’s Statement of Claim he alleged constitutional violations and violations of federal
statutes and the Court allowed him to proceed with filing.
But 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) requires the federal district court to remand the case to state court
if the federal court lacks jurisdiction. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). Federal courts must remand
if jurisdiction is lacking at any time. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Upon a full review of the record and the records for the municipal court cases that were
removed, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because those cases do not arise under
federal law or satisfy diversity jurisdiction. While Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim alleged federal
violations, the cases he was removing did not fall under federal jurisdiction and thus removal was
improper. See State of Missouri v. Popson, No. 4:20-CV-06161-SJ-FJG, 2021 WL 5546461, at *4
(W.D. Mo. Apr. 19, 2021)(“When a complaint asserts only state-law claims, the case cannot be
Case 3:25-cv-05069-MDH Document 40 Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 3

3
removed to federal court based on either a counterclaim or an anticipated defense that arises under
federal law.”).
If Plaintiff wishes to file his claims against the parties listed, he may do so in a separate
federal case after he fully exhausts his state remedies. As for this action, his removal of the
municipal cases was improper, and the case must be remanded. This Court does not have
jurisdiction over those cases and claims.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. It is ORDERED
that this case is hereby REMANDED to the Municipal Court of Webb City.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 26, 2026
/s/ Douglas Harpool
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-05069-MDH Document 40 Filed 03/26/26 Page 3 of 3