to the states under the Constitution to provide for the determination of controversies in their courts, may be restricted only by the action of Congress in conformity to the Judiciary Articles of the Constitution. “Due regard for the rightful independence of state governments, which should actuate federal courts, requires that they scrupulously confíne their own jurisdiction to the precise limits which the statute has defined.” Shamrock Oil, 313 U.S. at 108-09, 61 S.Ct. 868 (citations omitted). In La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., Inc., 506 F.2d 339, 344 (3d Cir.1974), the court observed that “the current statute [28 U.S.C. § 1441] has been given a similar construction” to that set forth in Shamrock Oil. See First Nat’l Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, 301 F.3d 456, 462 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Thus, this Court finds that it lacks
holding that defendants are not similarly situated for sentencing purposes where one defendant accepts responsibility but the other does not holding states are not persons for the purposes of section 1983 holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding that thirdparty defendants are not defendants for purposes of  1441a holding district court may properly on its own motion dismiss an action as to defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such defendants are in a position similar to that of moving defendants or where claims against such defendants are integrally related