United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
IN THE MATTER OF A SUBPOENA ISSUED TO UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE IN CASE NO. C-662234, 21/D BY 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EACH BATON ROUGE, STATE OF LOUISIANA
RULING ON MOTION TO QUASH
WILDER-DOOMES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is the United States' Motion to Quash Subpoena
(the “Motion to Quash”). As no timely opposition or
other response to the Motion to Quash has been filed, the
Motion to Quash is considered unopposed. For the reasons
set forth herein, the Motion to Quash is granted.
September 6, 2019, the United States of America (the
“United States”) file d a Notice of Removal
removing “the proceedings on the subpoena issued to the
United States Postal Service in the matter entitled
Christopher Brinson versus Freddie J. Campbell,
Progressive Waste Solutions of LA, Inc., and ACE American
Insurance Company, Docket No. C-662234, Section 21,
Division D, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish
of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana” (the
“State Court Action”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1442(a)(1). The United States asserts that defendants
in the State Court Action have served a subpoena on the
United States Postal Service (“USPS”)
“seeking to have the Supervisor of the Baton Rouge USPS
facility, a federal non-party, appear and testify at a
removal, the United States file d the Motion to Quash,
asserting that “the USPS is not a party to the
underlying state court civil action, and per its valid
Touhy regulations, the USPS has withheld
authorizing its USPS supervisor to provide testimony in
response to the state court subpoena” and that the
“subpoena must be quashed on the independent ground of
sovereign immunity.” “In the Fifth Circuit, it is well
established that because the United States Government has not
expressly waived its sovereign immunity with respect to state
court-issued subpoenas, federal courts must quash subpoenas
issued to federal officers removed from state court to
federal court under 28 U.S.C. §
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United
States' Motion to Quash Subpoena is GRANTED.
Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to close this miscellaneous
 R. Doc. 3.
 See, Local Civil Rule
 R. Do c . 1.
 R. Doc. 1, ¶ 1. The United States
only removed the state court proceedings related to the
subpoena. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(d)(1) (“The terms
‘civil action' and ‘criminal prosecution'
include any proceeding (whether or not ancillary to another
proceeding) to the extent that in such proceeding a judicial
order, including a subpoena for testimony or documents, is
sought or issued. If removal is sought for a proceeding
described in the previous sentence, and there is no other
basis for removal, only that proceeding may be removed to the
district court.”); State of La. v. Sparks, 978
F.2d 226, 229, n. 6 (5th Cir. 1992) (“Removal was
limited to the state court proceedings relating to
Gsell's subpoenas. The underlying death penalty case
itself, including Sparks' motion for a new trial, remains
pending in the Louisiana courts.”).
United States ex rel. Touhy v.
340 U.S. 462 (1951) (subordinate federal officer
cannot be held in contempt for failing to comply with a
subpoena in ...