## Facts

- Mall patrons Allan D. Lindsey and Randall Coughanour alleged mall security harassed, threatened, and assaulted them at a shopping mall in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania.
- They sought police help; a West Mifflin police officer allegedly refused to intervene and warned he would arrest them if they returned to the mall.
- After later returning, they were allegedly handcuffed, taken to mall offices, cited for disorderly conduct and defiant trespass, and photographed; the photos were posted by security.
- They were convicted in state court, but their convictions were later vacated on appeal.
- They filed a multi-count civil action in Pennsylvania state court asserting state tort claims (including malicious prosecution, abuse of process, assault, conspiracy, and negligence) and a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a conspiracy to deprive them of civil rights arising from the same events.
- Municipal defendants removed the action to federal court based on the § 1983 federal question.
- The district court remanded the entire case, including the § 1983 claim, reasoning that state law predominated.
- Municipal defendants sought a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate the remand order and retain the case.

## Issues

1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) authorized remand of an entire removed action, including a § 1983 claim, when the federal and state claims arose from the same events and injuries.
2. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) permitted remand of the federal claim (or otherwise justified remanding the entire case) on the ground that state-law issues predominated.
3. Whether mandamus was available to correct a remand order allegedly entered in excess of the district court’s statutory authority.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit granted mandamus and vacated the district court’s remand order.
- The court held § 1441(c) did not apply because the § 1983 claim was not “separate and independent” from the state-law claims; all derived from a common nucleus of operative fact and sought redress for the same alleged wrongs.
- The court held § 1367(c) did not authorize remand of a claim over which the federal court had original jurisdiction and could not be used to accomplish an all-claims remand barred by § 1441(c).
- The court directed that the federal court retain jurisdiction over the § 1983 claim and address the related state-law claims within the limits of supplemental-jurisdiction doctrine.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) (as amended), remand of “all matters in which State law predominates” is available only if the action includes a federal-question claim that is “separate and independent” from otherwise nonremovable claims.
- Federal and state claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence, sharing a common nucleus of operative fact, and seeking recovery for the same injuries are not “separate and independent” for § 1441(c).
- 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims in specified circumstances, but it does not permit remand of claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.
- Mandamus may issue to correct a remand order entered in excess of statutory authority when ordinary appellate review is unavailable or inadequate.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held the district court lacked statutory authority to remand an entire removed action based on state-law predominance where the § 1983 claim was intertwined with the state claims, and it used mandamus to vacate the remand and require retention of the federal claim in federal court.


Borough of W. Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780 (3d Cir. 1995)