govinfo:USCOURTS-pawd-2_26-cv-01186-0

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 
not in its Individual Capacity but solely as 
Trustee for the RMAC Trust, Series 2016-
CIT, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 vs. 
 
ALFONSO AMELIO, CARMINE AMELIO, 
 
 Defendants, 
 
)
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Civil Action No. 26-1186 
Judge Nora Barry Fischer 
 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Presently before the Court are a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by pro se 
Defendant Alfonso Amelio (“Amelio”) as well as the accompanying Notice of Removal filed by 
him and Carmine Amelio (collectively, “Defendants”) and a supporting docket sheet for a state 
civil action, (Docket No. [1]). The instant filings show that Defendants are attempting to remove 
an ejectment action filed by Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association against Amelio in the Court 
of Common Pleas of Allegheny County . (Id.). However, Defendants have only attached the 
docket sheet for GD-22-002418, which indicates, among other things, that the Complaint was filed 
against Amelio on March 2, 2022; Amelio filed an Answer on March 31, 2022; and, has proceeded 
to litigate various issues for the past four years, including various appeals to state appellate courts 
and a Petition for Writ of Certiorari which he states remains pending before the Supreme Court of 
the United States. (Docket No. 1 -1). Carmine Amelio is not listed as a Defendant in the state 
court case on the docket sheet but has joined Alfonso Amelio and also signed the removal papers 
in this Court as a pro se litigant.1 After careful consideration of the filings in light of the relevant 
 
1 It is well established that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1654, a person who is not a lawyer may not appear to represent 
another individual in federal court. See Williams v. United States, 477 F. App’x 9, 11 (3d Cir. 2012) (citations omitted) 

2 
 
standards set forth below, the Court will grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis but will 
remand this matter to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, forthwith. 
In so holding, the Court notes that “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” 
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 
(1994). “They possess only that power authorized by Constitution or statute, which is not expanded 
by judicial decree.” Id. (internal citations omitted). In every case, the Court has “an independent 
obligation to determine whether subject -matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a 
challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1 63 
L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) . When a party removes a case to federal court, the Court must “evaluate 
whether that action could have been brought originally in federal court. ” Home Depot U. S. A., 
Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1748, 204 L. Ed. 2d 34 (2019), reh'g denied, No. 17-1471, 2019 
WL 3538074 (U.S. Aug. 5, 2019). The Court should remand the case “[i]f at any time before final 
judgment it appears that the [Court] lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) . 
Amelio, as the removing party ass erting that the Court has jurisdiction over this case, bears the 
burden of establishing same. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673. 
Having considered the matter, the Court finds that the instant removal is both procedurally 
and substantively deficien t under the relevant removal statutes, necessitating a remand of this 
matter to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. To this end, the removal is procedurally 
defective because Amelio has not attached the Complaint nor any of the pleadings filed in state 
court and the docket sheet he has supplied fails to demonstrate that the Court has jurisdiction over 
 
("power of attorney for her father may confer certain decision-making authority under state law, but it does not permit 
her to represent him pro se in federal court."); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties 
may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are 
permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.”). As such, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to strike Carmine 
Amelio as a party from this Court’s docket and will analyze the attempted removal by Alfonso Amelio, only. 

3 
 
this matter. See Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey v. Arsenis , No. CV 23 -22822 
(MAS) (DEA), 2024 WL 2750824, at *2 (D.N.J. May 29, 2024), aff'd in part, appeal dismissed in 
part, No. 24-2009, 2025 WL 2504824 (3d Cir. Sept. 2, 2025) (“Defendants did not attach a copy 
of Plaintiff's state court complaint to their removal notice, let alone to any other document that the 
parties filed in the state court action. […] As such, Defendants’ removal fails to comply with 
relevant filing rules.”) ; see also Martinez v. Harrison , No. CV2303513JXNMAH, 2023 WL 
5237130, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 15, 2023) (“Plaintiff's Notice of Removal fails to satisfy th e 
procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446. […] Plaintiff failed to attach the State Court 
complaint or indicate any basis for removal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.”). 
Amelio’s failure to include the Complaint precludes a full evaluation of the merits of this 
removal as the Court’s task is to review the Complaint filed at the time of removal to determine if 
any the asserted bases for removal – here, federal question, § 1331, diversity, § 1332 or civil rights, 
§ 1443, are appropriate. (See Docket No. 1-1). With that said, it appears to the Court that Amelio 
is otherwise unable to d emonstrate that subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate for several 
reasons, including that: 
• the well -pleaded complaint rule precludes the removal of a case 
upon federal question jurisdiction unless the federal claim is 
apparent on the face of the complaint and his assertions of federal 
defenses and alleged procedural defects in the state proceedings are 
not enough , see e.g., Berne Corp. v. Government of The Virgin 
Islands, 570 F.3d 130, 136 (3d. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted) (“[t]he 
presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by 
the ‘well -pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal 
[question] jurisdiction exists only where a federal question is 
presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded 
complaint.”); 
 
• the docket sheet states that the amount in dispute is $0 in the 
ejectment action such that the amount in controversy is not enough 
to satisfy the jurisdictional amount for diversity jurisdi ction under 
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) of $75,000 and Amelio’s assertion that 

4 
 
Plaintiff’s citizenship is Ohio based on U.S. Bank National 
Association’s status is insufficient given that the state court docket 
sheet plainly states that Plaintiff is bringing the ca se as trustee of a 
real estate investment trust, requiring further inquiry to determine 
whether its citizenship also includes other jurisdictions, see 
GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC , 888 F.3d 29, 39 
(3d Cir. 2018) (“the citizenship of a tra ditional trust is only that of 
its trustee, while that of a business entity called a trust is that of its 
constituent owners.”) . Hence, diversity jurisdiction is not 
established on this record; and, 
 
• he has not presented any argument that the case is properly removed 
based on an assertion of a violation of civil rights in terms of racial 
equity, as is required to effectuate removal under § 1443, see 
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey v. Arsenis , No. 24-
2009, 2025 WL 2504824, at *3 (3d Cir. Se pt. 2, 2025) (quoting 
Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 (1966)) (“For the first prong, 
a defendant must demonstrate that the civil rights she asserts were 
denied are ‘in the specific language of racial equality ’ rather than 
‘phrased in terms of general application available to all persons or 
citizens.’”). 
 
In addition, the Court has substantial doubts that it has jurisdiction to accept removal of a state 
case which has proceeded through the state appellate process and a Petition for Writ of Certiorari 
is pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, as Amelio states in the Notice of 
Removal. Cf. Martinez, 2023 WL 5237130, at *2 (“to the extent that Plaintiff seeks this Court's 
review over an action in State Court, this Court does not have jurisdi ction to review state court 
proceedings.”). Stated differently, Amelio cannot have it both ways and remove the trial portion 
of his case to federal court and leave his various appeals in state appellate courts and/or final review 
by the Supreme Court of the United States. See Danziger & De Llano, LLP v. Morgan Verkamp 
LLC, 948 F.3d 124, 132 (3d Cir . 2020) (quotation omitted) (“the federal court ’s jurisdiction 
exercised on removal is original not appellate.”). 
The Court believes that the type of procedural fencing that has occurred here, with Amelio 
appealing an order of the state trial court scheduling a hearing on the motion for summary judgment 

5 
 
on June 2, 2026, to the Superior Court and then attempting to remove the action to this court on 
the day of the hearing is strongly disfavored by federal courts. It also appears from the state court 
docket sheet that the June 2, 2026 hearing was not held such that his complaints about the process 
in state court and the trial court ’s alleged violation of a prior order staying that action pending 
disposition of all appeals are now moot and the Court lacks jurisdiction over moot issues . Cf. 
Pletcher v. Giant Eagle Inc., No. CV 2:20-754, 2022 WL 17488019, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2022) 
(quoting Seneca Res. Corp. v. Twp. of Highland, Elk Cnty., Pennsylvania , 863 F.3d 245, 252 (3d 
Cir. 2017) (further citations and quotations omitted) (“The Court ’s ‘continuing obligation ’ to 
ensure that subject matter jurisdiction is present extends to it inquiring into ‘issues of standing and 
mootness sua sponte.’”). 
While the Court has discretion to permit jurisdictional allegations to be cured, 28 U.S.C. § 
1653, the Court does not believe that is necessary in this case because any amendment would be 
futile for the reasons set forth above . The Notice of R emoval also suffers from additional 
procedural defects which make clear that a remand is inevitable in this matter. Among other things, 
the instant removal is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) which requires the notice of removal 
to be filed within thirty (30) days of Amelio’s receipt of the Complaint “through service or 
otherwise” and the docket sheet plainly states that he entered his appearance in state court in March 
of 2022 filed an answer and then proceeded to litigate v arious issues for the next four plus years. 
See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) (“The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed 
within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the 
initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.”). 
The Supreme Court recently held that § 1446(b)(1) is a mandatory claims processing rule and not 
subject to equitable tolling such that the timeframe can only be extende d based on the specific 

6 
 
provisions set forth in the statute. See Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel on behalf of Michigan, 146 
S. Ct. 1074, 1086 (2026) (“§ 1446(b)(1)’s 30 -day deadline cannot be equitably tolled.”). One 
potentially applicable exception would be 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c) since the removal is premised on 
diversity of citizenship, but that provision bars removal more than 1 year after commencement of 
the state court action, making it untimely for the same reasons. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c). The state 
court docket sheet likewise states that Amelio’s address is in Pittsburgh and, despite his claim in 
the notice of removal that he is a citizen of New York, the forum defendant rule could separately 
bar this action. Cf. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n As Tr. for Holders of the Merrill Lynch Mortg . 
Invs. Tr., Mortg. Loan-Asset-Backed Certificate Series 2006-WMCI v. Dey-El, 788 F. App’x 857, 
859–60 (3d Cir. 2019) (“The forum -defendant rule is not jurisdictional and is instead a defect in 
removal that must be raised in a timely motion to remand.”). 
Finally, the Court takes judicial notice that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District 
of New York recently dismissed a notice of removal filed by Defendants in that District finding 
that they “filed a frivolous notice of removal and have done so in other courts,” directed them to 
show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for doing so, and referred the matter to another 
Judge for consideration of whether a filing injunction should be imposed against them for engaging 
in vexatious litigation practices. See U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Legal Title Tr. 
for Truman 2016 SC6 Title Tr., Plaintiff, v. CARMINE P. AMELIO, PAUL A. AMELIO, ALFONSO 
AMELIO, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., QUICKEN LOANS, 
INC., & JOHN DOE #1 through JOHN DOE #12, Defendants. , No. 6:26 -CV-70 (MAD/MJK), 
2026 WL 1453820, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. May 22, 2026) ; see also Grasinger v. Caterpillar, Inc., Civ. 
A. No. 21-956, 2023 WL 4846843, at *1 (W.D. Pa. July 28, 2023) (quoting Johnson v. Allegheny 
Cnty., No. 2:14 -CV-857, 2014 WL 5513769, at *2 n.2 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2014)) (“It is well 

7 
 
established that “[t]his Court may properly take judicial notice of docket entries, documents, and 
opinions filed in other cases.”). Given the lack of jurisdiction over this matter and i n light of the 
Court’s duty to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and 
proceeding,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the Court holds that a prompt remand of this matter is most 
appropriate given all of the facts and circumstances of this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (a court 
should remand a case “[i]f at any time befo re final judgment it appears that the [Court] lacks 
subject matter jurisdiction.”). 
For all of these reasons, this matter is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for all 
further proceedings, forthwith. An appropriate Order follows. 
 
s/Nora Barry Fischer__________ 
Nora Barry Fischer 
 Senior U.S. District Judge 
Dated: June 5, 2026 
cc/ecf: All counsel of record. 
Prothonotary, Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 
cc: Alfonso Amelio & Carmine Amelio 
32 Main Street 
New Milford, CT 06776 
 (via first class mail) 

Passage view · GavelSight