Q: Removal of 1983 case filed in State Court filed by defense attorney.

A: This is a complex situation involving civil procedure, federal jurisdiction, and the interplay between state and federal courts. Let me break down the key issues and offer some guidance:

1. Original Federal Court Dismissal:

The federal judge dismissed your §1983 case with prejudice based solely on immunity under the 11th Amendment. This means the federal court found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case against the state official.

2. Refiling in State Court:

You then filed the case in state court, which was within your rights, especially if the statute of limitations hadn't expired.

3. Removal to Federal Court:

The defense attorney has now removed the case back to federal court. This is generally permissible for cases that could have originally been filed in federal court, which includes §1983 claims.

4. The Jurisdictional Conflict:

You've identified a key contradiction: The defense attorney previously argued successfully that the federal court lacked jurisdiction, but is now asserting federal jurisdiction through removal.

5. Res Judicata Claim:

The defense is arguing that the previous dismissal should preclude the new case (res judicata). However, this may be a flawed argument if the original dismissal was purely jurisdictional and didn't address the merits.

Possible Courses of Action:

1. Motion to Remand: You can file a motion to remand the case back to state court, arguing that the defense attorney's previous position on federal jurisdiction should prevent them from now asserting it (this is called "judicial estoppel").

2. Challenge the Res Judicata Claim: Argue that the previous dismissal was purely jurisdictional and did not address the merits, so it should not have preclusive effect on a new filing in state court.

3. Highlight the Contradiction: In your responses to the court, emphasize the contradictory nature of the defense's arguments regarding jurisdiction.

4. Research Similar Cases: Look for cases in your jurisdiction where courts have addressed similar procedural situations.

Important Considerations:

- Federal courts generally have jurisdiction over §1983 claims, but state sovereign immunity can complicate matters.

- The specific details of your case and the exact rulings of the previous federal judge will be crucial.

- Pro se litigants face significant challenges in navigating these complex procedural issues.

Given the complexity of this situation, I strongly recommend consulting with an attorney experienced in federal civil rights litigation if possible. Many civil rights organizations or law school clinics might be able to offer assistance or guidance.