CHRISTOPHER NALLEY v. JANET ANN WILLIAMS NALLEY (2026)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se plaintiff Christopher M. Nalley sued pro se defendant Janet Ann Williams-Nalley for divorce in state court. Dkt. 1-1 at 1. More than four years later, Williams-Nalley removed the case to this court and asserted counterclaims against Nalley and third-party claims against the State of Texas, Brett A. Nelson, and Brent Hill. Dkt. 1. The case should be remanded.

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Williams-Nalley asserts jurisdiction based on the alleged unconstitutionality of Texas child-custody statutes and on her counterclaims and third-party claims, which allege violations of various federal statutes. Dkt. 1 at 4–5. Neither of those is a basis on which the court may exercise jurisdiction.

“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant. Absent diversity of citizenship, federal-question jurisdiction is required.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1331 in omitted footnotes). This divorce suit does not involve a federal question. To the contrary, “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the United States.” Ex parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593–94 (1890); see Hunt v. Lamb, 427 F.3d 725, 726 (10th Cir. 2005) (applying that rule to similar facts). Williams-Nalley's assertion of a constitutional defense in state court is not enough to create federal jurisdiction. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 365 (1989).

Jurisdiction does not lie under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, either. That statute permits removal of a case in which a defendant “rel[ies] upon a specific civil right stated in terms of racial equality, and ․ a clear prediction can be made that the right relied upon will be denied or not be enforceable in the state court.” Hill v. Pennsylvania, 439 F.2d 1016, 1019 (3d Cir. 1971) (citing Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (1966); City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (1966)). Williams-Nalley makes only vague, conclusory allegations that the state court harbors racial animus. Dkt. 1 at 19–20. Those allegations do not support removal under § 1443. Hunt, 427 F.3d at 727.

Nor do Williams-Nalley's counterclaims and third-party claims create federal jurisdiction. “[W]hether a case is one arising under the Constitution or a law or treaty of the United States, in the sense of the jurisdictional statute, must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim.” Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 207 (2004) (cleaned up). Williams-Nalley's counterclaims and third-party claims can therefore not support removal. Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 145 F.3d 320, 326–27 (5th Cir. 1998).

RECOMMENDATION

It is RECOMMENDED that the case be REMANDED to the 367th Judicial District Court of Denton County, Texas.

* * *

Within 14 days after service of this report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

A party is entitled to a de novo review by the district court of the findings and conclusions contained in this report only if specific objections are made. Id. § 636(b)(1). Failure to timely file written objections to any proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report will bar an aggrieved party from appellate review of those factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, except on grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir.

1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 10 to 14 days).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 2nd day of September, 2026.

Bill Davis United States Magistrate Judge