Federal National Mortgage Association v. Eugene, et. al.
Filing
3
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/10/12 ORDERED that Judy Eugene's application to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is denied; and RECOMMENDING that this action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento and this case be closed. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,
et al.,
12
13
14
Plaintiffs,
No. 12-cv-1353 KJM DAD PS
vs.
JOHN H. EUGENE, JR.;
JUDY EUGENE,
ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15
16
Defendants.
17
18
/
This civil action was opened when, on May 18, 2012, John Eugene, Jr. and Judy
19
Eugene, proceeding pro se, filed with this court, among other things, a document styled
20
“JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS.” (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) However, from that
21
filing it is unclear with the Eugenes are attempting to initiate a new action or seeking to remove
22
an action filed against in state court them by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie
23
Mae). The action has therefore been referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule
24
302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
25
26
A filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil action in a federal district
court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The court may authorize the commencement of an action without
1
1
prepayment of fees or security therefor by a litigant who submits an affidavit demonstrating
2
inability to pay. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Judy Eugene has filed an application to proceed in forma
3
pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) The court finds, however, that Judy Eugene has failed to make the
4
showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
5
In this regard, Judy Eugene indicates that she receives wages of $650 per week,
6
has $500 in cash or in a checking or savings account, owns “automobiles,” and that her regularly
7
monthly expenses consist only of “utilities.” (Doc. No. 2 at 2.) Although Judy Eugene’s
8
application names two persons who are dependent upon her for support, she does not state how
9
much she contributes to their support. In this regard, Judy Eugene has not demonstrated that she
10
is unable to pay the $350 filing fee for this action.
11
Moreover, even if she were to make such a showing, the court would not grant her
12
leave to proceed in forma pauperis unless John Eugene, Jr., also demonstrated indigence. In this
13
regard, filing fees must be paid unless each party applies for and is granted leave to proceed in
14
forma pauperis. Accordingly, Judy Eugene’s application to proceed in forma pauperis will be
15
denied.
16
Turning to the documents filed by the Eugenes, the court notes that the Civil
17
Cover Sheet filed by defendants indicates that the origin of this action is “Removed from State
18
Court.” (Doc. No. 1-4 at 1.) It is well established that the statutes governing removal
19
jurisdiction must be “strictly construed against removal.” Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co.,
20
592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100,
21
108 (1941)). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of
22
removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “‘The
23
burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.’” Harris v.
24
Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life
25
Ins. Co., 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986)). Moreover, “the existence of federal jurisdiction
26
depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those
2
1
claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108,
2
1113 (9th Cir. 2000). Where it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
3
over a removed case, “the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
4
Here, in addition to roughly 100 pages of exhibits, the Eugenes have filed a
5
largely incoherent document styled “JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS.” (Doc.
6
No. 1 at 1.) That document refers to “Unlawful Detainer Case Number: 11UD09909.” (Id. at 7.)
7
Moreover, attached to the “JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS” are several
8
documents from an unlawful detainer action filed in the Sacramento County Superior Court,
9
bearing Case No. 11UD09909, including the Eugenes answer to Fannie Mae’s complaint filed in
10
the Sacramento County Superior Court. (Id. at 15, 22, 25.) Not included with the Eugenes’
11
filing, however, is a copy of the complaint filed in that state court action.
12
Nonetheless, it is evident from the number assigned to the case in state court and
13
the documents filed by the Eugenes that the matter is an unlawful detainer action. The court
14
finds that the Eugenes have failed to demonstrate that Fannie Mae’s state court complaint alleges
15
any claims other than those typically alleged in a garden-variety unlawful detainer action filed by
16
a property owner against the former owner of property located in California, based wholly on
17
California law. The Eugenes have not shown that Fannie Mae’s complaint involves any “claim
18
or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States” that would have
19
permitted Fannie Mae to file this action originally in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
20
21
Accordingly, the court finds that the Eugenes have failed to meet their burden of
establishing a basis for federal jurisdiction.
22
23
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judy Eugene’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied.
24
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be summarily remanded to the
25
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento and this case be closed.
26
/////
3
1
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
2
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
3
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the Eugenes may file any
4
written objections with the court.1 A document presenting objections should be titled
5
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”
6
DATED: September 10, 2012.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\FNMA-eugene1353.f&r.remand.ud
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
If the Eugenes are not attempting to remove the state court action filed against them to
this court but instead attempting to initiate a new action of their own, they may so explain in any
objections they elect to file to these findings and recommendations.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?