Oscar v. John Adams Supreme Judicial Court et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JORDAN OSCAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN ADAMS SUPREME JUDICIAL
COURT, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 25-11906-BEM
ORDER
MURPHY, J.
In a case originally brought in state court and subsequently removed to federal court by the
Plaintiff, the Court will dismiss the action because federal law permits removal only by a defendant
and once final judgment is entered in state court, it cannot be removed.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Jordan Oscar filed a notice of removal in which he purportedly removes his state
court litigation to this federal court. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks removal “due to
unfairness of judgment on the lower court and neglect that have been and is proven by plaintiff
from the full court of John Adams in connections of the Superior Court Middlesex Woburn, MA.
Dkt. 1-1. 	With the notice of removal, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Dkt. 2. He subsequently filed a motion to amend to add as a defendant the Department
of Industrial Accidents. Dkt. 4.
Case 1:25-cv-11906-BEM Document 5 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 5

2
According to the unofficial electronic docket of the state courts, which is available to the
public through https://www.masscourts.org , and of which the Court may take judicial notice,1 judgment
was entered in favor of defendants on March 16, 2023. See Oscar v Stone and Skillet, et al., No.
2281CV03696 (Middlesex Super. Ct.). In September 2023, the trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion
for reconsideration. Id. On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff sought leave to file a late notice of appeal with
respect 	to 	the 	March 	16, 	2023 	judgment 	and 	the 	subsequent 	denial 	of 	his 	motion 	for
reconsideration. See Oscar v Stone and Skillet, et al., No. 2024-J-0328 (Mass. App. Ct.). On June
11, 2024, a single justice denied the motion and subsequent motion to reconsider. Id. On March
18, 2025, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the single justice’s denial of his motion to
file a late notice of appeal. See Oscar v Stone and Skillet, et al., No. 2024-P-740 (Mass. App. Ct.).
On July 15, 2025, and in accordance with the rescript opinion that was entered on June 27, 2025,
the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. See Oscar v Stone and Skillet, No. SJ-2024-0395 (Mass.).
II. 	DISCUSSION
Even construing Plaintiff’s pleadings generously because he is proceeding pro se, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Rodi v. New Eng. Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 13 (1st Cir.
2004), the Court must dismiss this action because this Court does not have jurisdiction over this
improperly removed action.
“‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.’ Thus, jurisdictional boundaries must
be scrupulously observed.” Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, 984 F.3d 21, 30 (1st Cir. 2020)
(quoting Rhode Island v. EPA, 378 F.3d 19, 22 (1st Cir. 2004)). 	The Court may consider
jurisdictional matters sua sponte. See Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. —, 145 S.Ct. 2190, 2201 (2025)
1See Wiener v. MIB Group, Inc., 86 F.4th 76, 81 n.3 (1st Cir. 2023) (“It is well-accepted that federal courts
may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts if those proceedings have relevance to the matters at hand.”
(quoting Law Offices of David Efron v. Matthews & Fullmer Law Firm, 782 F.3d 46, 56 n.7 (1st Cir. 2015))).
Case 1:25-cv-11906-BEM Document 5 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 5

3
(“A federal court must always satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction.”); see also Spooner v. EEN,
Inc., 644 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir. 2011) (“A court is duty-bound to notice, and act upon, defects in its
subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte”). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the case.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 	“‘[T]he party
invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court carries the burden of proving its existence.’”
Calderón-Serra v. Wilmington Tr. Co., 715 F.3d 14, 17 (1st Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which governs removals:
Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, 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 or the defendants, 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) (emphasis added). Under the plain language of the statute, only “the defendant
or defendants,” not a plaintiff, may remove a “pending” case to federal court. Id.
Federal courts at all levels have uniformly implemented this principle, from the United
States Supreme Court, see Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435, 437 (2019)
(“Section 1441(a), the general removal statute, permits ‘the defendant or the defendants’ in a state-
court action over which the federal courts would have original jurisdiction to remove that action
to federal court”), to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, see Ballard’s Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Transue,
865 F.2d 447, 449 (1st Cir. 1989) (“Plaintiffs cannot remove, even when they are in the position
of a defendant with regard to a counterclaim asserted against them”), to this District.
In addition, when a state court has entered final judgment in an action, that case cannot be
removed to federal court. See Four Keys Leasing & Maint. Corp. v. Simithis, 849 F.2d 770, 774
(2d Cir.1988) (holding that granting permission to remove a case after entry of a final state-court
judgment 	“would 	be 	a 	perversion 	of 	the 	removal 	process”); 	Magerick 	LLC 	v 	Piccone,
Case 1:25-cv-11906-BEM Document 5 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 5

4
No. 24-12504-PBS, 2025 WL 254465 (D. Mass. Jan. 21, 2025) (rejecting a pro se party’s attempt
to remove closed state action). Plaintiff may not seek the removal of a state court action in which
a final judgment has been entered.
Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff challenges the final outcome of any of his state court
proceedings, his claims are barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.2 That doctrine deprives
lower federal courts of jurisdiction over cases brought by non-prevailing parties “complaining of
injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced
and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Efreom v. McKee, 46 F.4th
9, 17 (1st Cir. 2022) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284
(2005). 	Rather, “the proper forum for challenging an unlawful state court ruling is the United
States Supreme Court, on appeal of the highest state court’s final judgment.” Davison v. Gov’t of
P.R.–P.R. Firefighters Corps., 471 F.3d 220, 223 (1st Cir. 2006); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1257 (“Final
judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had,
may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari.”).
The Court does not have authority to grant Plaintiff relief from a state court action that has
been terminated. To the extent Plaintiff is asking this Court to review or reject the holdings of his
previous state court proceedings that he alleges have caused him injury, such claims are barred by
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and are dismissed.
2 The doctrine was created by two Supreme Court cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16
(1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983).
Case 1:25-cv-11906-BEM Document 5 Filed 12/18/25 Page 4 of 5

5
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. 	The clerk shall terminate the pending motions as moot and enter a
separate order of dismissal.
So Ordered.
/s/ Brian E. Murphy
Brian E. Murphy
Dated: December 18, 2025 	Judge, United States District Court
Case 1:25-cv-11906-BEM Document 5 Filed 12/18/25 Page 5 of 5