Powell v. Powell

Filing 3

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/31/2017; GRANTING 2 Defendant's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis; RECOMMENDING that this action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento; Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections within 14 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L) Modified on 8/31/2017 (Reader, L).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL THOMAS POWELL,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-01751 TLN CKD (PS)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER &

T. ARTIMES POWELL,

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

16
17

This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly

18

construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.

19

1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the

20

first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

21

Here, defendant seeks to remove Case. No. 17FS00130, concerning a support order issued

22

in Placer County, from the Sacramento County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.) This is duplicative

23

of an earlier-filed action, No. 2:17-cv-01035 KJM CKD, in which defendant sought to remove

24

Case No. 17FS00130 from the Placer County Superior Court. On August 4, 2017, case No. 2:17-

25

cv-01035 KJM CKD was dismissed and remanded to superior court due to untimely removal

26

under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

27
28

As in the earlier-filed case, the instant case involves a family law matter that does not
appear to present a federal question. Family law disputes are domestic relations matters
1

1

traditionally within the domain of the state courts, and it is appropriate for federal district courts

2

to abstain from hearing such cases, which often involve continued judicial supervision by the

3

state. See Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236, 237 (9th Cir. 1987). The proper recourse for alleged

4

errors in family law orders is appeal of those orders in the state appellate courts.

5

Defendant has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that she is unable to

6

prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, defendant’s request to proceed in

7

forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

8
9
10
11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(ECF No. 2) is granted.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be summarily remanded
to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.

12

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

13

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

14

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

15

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

16

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

17

shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

18

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

19

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20

Dated: August 31, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26

2 powell1751.duplic_fr

27
28
2