Powell v. Powell
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).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL THOMAS POWELL,
No. 2:17-cv-01751 TLN CKD (PS)
T. ARTIMES POWELL,
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly
construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.
1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the
first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
Here, defendant seeks to remove Case. No. 17FS00130, concerning a support order issued
in Placer County, from the Sacramento County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.) This is duplicative
of an earlier-filed action, No. 2:17-cv-01035 KJM CKD, in which defendant sought to remove
Case No. 17FS00130 from the Placer County Superior Court. On August 4, 2017, case No. 2:17-
cv-01035 KJM CKD was dismissed and remanded to superior court due to untimely removal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
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
traditionally within the domain of the state courts, and it is appropriate for federal district courts
to abstain from hearing such cases, which often involve continued judicial supervision by the
state. See Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236, 237 (9th Cir. 1987). The proper recourse for alleged
errors in family law orders is appeal of those orders in the state appellate courts.
Defendant has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that she is unable to
prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, defendant’s request to proceed in
forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
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.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised
that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: August 31, 2017
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?