Whether a federal district court may retain jurisdiction over a case removed beyond the 30-day statutory window when the defendants were aware of federal claims in prior amended complaints

No question identified. : In the Supreme Court of the United States Ryan Welter MD PhD Vv. Coverys, Gregg Hanson, Brenda Richardson and Joseph Dickerson PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI To Circuit Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: Petitioner Dr. Ryan Welter respectfully requests that the time to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in this matter be extended for sixty days, up to and including September 14, 2024. On April 17, 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion for rehearing en banc. Docket report enclosed. Absent an extension of time, the Petition would be due on July 16, 2024. This Court has jurisdiction over this Application under 28 U.S.C. 1254 and has authority to grant the requested relief under 28 U.S.C. 1651. BRIEF BACKGROUND AUS District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and shall not voluntarily claim jurisdiction over cases where Congress has ruled that it has none. The Supreme Court’s teachings on this point have been many, clear, and recent. In the First Circuit circuit, and nationwide, where there is any doubt over the court’s jurisdiction, the district court shall remand the case to state court. Here, the defendants’ removal was untimely because they gambled on tossing the suit out in state court, and removed only after their attempt failed. The district court violated both the plain text of a Congressional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3), and circuit precedents, and chose to unlawfully retain jurisdiction. The First Circuit ignored current circuit precedent in addition to this Court’s controlling rulings and the plain text of federal law, and affirmed the district court based on an older ruling from the Sixth circuit. This was an extraordinary error that merits reversal. STATEMENT On February 21, 2021, petitioner Dr. Welter sued the defendants in state court via a pro se complaint. A judge strongly urged him to hire an attorney, which he did. The attorney amended the complaint and served it on the defendants. Thus the defendants received a proper summons with the amended pleading, Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999), which contained claims that arose under federal law and was immediately removable, 18 USC § 1030. They chose to not remove to federal court, and filed motions to dismiss instead. Dr. Welter moved to continue pro se and emailed the defendants the Second amended complaint, the classic subsequent paper. In March 2022, a Rule 12 hearing was held in state court at which the defendants demonstrated that they were aware that the claims in the Second Amended Complaint arose under federal law, and informed the judge: “Dr. Welter’s complaint...has a morass of claims, Computer Fraud and Abuse claims... We believe that the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice, we are prepared to argue that now, there would be no need to deal with a motion for leave to amend because the case would be gone.” The defendants intentionally did not remove the case to federal court within thirty days of receiving “subsequent paper” in February 2022 itself. Then the state court granted Dr. Welter leave to proceed pro se and allowed his attorney to withdraw. On May 5, 2022, appellant again served the Second Amended Complaint upon Coverys and Dickerson through the state court’s Rule 9A procedure, and the defendants again had in hand the plaintiff’s subsequent paper which openly asserted federal claims that arose under federal law and shouted that it was immediately removable. Coverys instead filed a motion to reconsider in state court that aimed to get all claims in the first amended complaint dismissed. Nobody removed the case to federal court within 30 days of receiving the subsequent paper. On June 8, 2022, the state court declined to dismiss all counts in the amended complaint, and on June 10, 2022, over defendants’ opposition, granted leave to amend. On June 30, 2022, more than thirty days after again being serve