Travis v. Joplin Metro Credit Union, et al.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
FREDRIC DARNELL TRAVIS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 3:25-cv-05103-MDH
)
JOPLIN METRO CREDIT UNION et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion to Remove from State Court. (Doc. 13). The
Defendants filed Suggestions in Opposition (Doc. 17) and Plaintiff has filed a reply. (Doc. 22).
The motion is now ripe for adjudication on the merits. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Pro
Se Motion to Remove from State Court is DENIED.
On October 7, 2025, Defendant Joplin Metro Credit Union (“Credit Union”) filed a petition
in the Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri alleging one count of replevin and one count of
breach of contract against Plaintiff. See Joplin Metro Credit Union v. Fredric Travis, Case No.
25AP-AC01133. Defendant Credit Union filed the state court action alleging that on June 27, 2023,
Defendant Credit Union loaned to Plaintiff the sum of $7,931.00 for the purchase of a 2015 Subaru
(the “Vehicle”). Id. Defendant Credit Union alleges that the Plaintiff signed the Loan and Security
Agreement, secured by a lien properly executed and recorded on the title, and made multiple
payments on the loan. Id. Defendant Credit Union states that the last payment Plaintiff made was
on March 26, 2025, and since that time Plaintiff has undertaken a course of conduct whereby he
has claimed the money loaned to him by Defendant Credit Union came from an unknown and
unspecified account with the United States Treasury. Id. Defendant Credit Union alleges that it
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 26 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 3

2
became lawfully entitled to possession of the Vehicle by Plaintiff’s default on the Loan and
Security Agreement. Id. Defendant Credit Union states that after Plaintiff was notified of default
and Plaintiff’s intent to repossess the vehicle, he has wrongfully retained the Vehicle from the
possession of the Defendant Credit Union. Id.
On March 11, 2026, the state court entered its judgment ruling:
The Court finds in favor of [Credit Union] and against [Plaintiff] on Count I of
[Credit Union]’s Petition seeking replevin of the 2015 Subaru Legacy … and
further orders that [Credit Union] is entitled to possession of said vehicle, plus court
costs. The Court finds in favor of [Credit Union] and against [Plaintiff] on Count II
of [Credit Union]’s Petition for breach of contract, and awards damages in the
amount of $6,609.89 plus court costs and post-judgment interest at the statutory
rate. The Court finds in favor of [Credit Union] and against [Plaintiff] on
[Plaintiff]’s Petition for Redress of Grievance and all claims set forth therein. The
Court finds in favor of [Credit Union] and against [Plaintiff] on [Plaintiff]’s Motion
for Abatement and all claims set froth therein.
Joplin Metro Credit Union v. Fredric Travis, Case No. 25AP-AC01133. Plaintiff asks this Court
to remove the state action arguing that if he was to proceed in state court it will damage the “rights
to possession, title and interest in a private trust that only inherent equity has the sole exclusive
jurisdiction to recognize - and that state court is not a court of special equity and it does not have
jurisdiction of non-statutory trusts.” (Doc. 13).
Federal law provides that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant … to the
district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such
action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A defendant “desiring to remove any civil action for a
State court shall file in the district court … a notice of removal” that contains “a short and plain
statement of the grounds for removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).
Here, this Court does not have original jurisdiction of the state action and therefore removal
of the state action to federal court would be improper. Defendant Credit Union alleged two state
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 26 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 3

3
law claims, both of which do not raise any issues regarding federal laws. Further, while Plaintiff
attempts to connect the current action with the state action, the Court finds that the claims in the
current case are not so related to the claims in the state action that would warrant supplemental
jurisdiction.
[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the
district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so
related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part
of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges one count under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and
does not encompass nor have any bearing regarding the state court action dealing with replevin
and breach of contract. Further as a judgment has already been entered in the state court action,
this Court would find it improper to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as the state action is
currently on appeal in state court. The federal courts share concerns for finality and consistency
and have generally declined to expand opportunities for collateral attack on a state’s judgment of
finality. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484–85, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2371, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994).
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motin to Remove from State Court is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Pro Se Motion to File Amended Petition Under Seal is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: April 21, 2026
/s/ Douglas Harpool______________
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 26 Filed 04/21/26 Page 3 of 3