Meza v. State of California et al

Filing 25

ORDER REMANDING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/24/18. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2018) Modified on 4/24/2018 (cl, COURT STAFF). The deputy clerk hereby certifies that on 4/24/18 a copy of this order was served by sending it via first-class mail to the address of each non-CM/ECF user listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RUDY MEZA,

Case No. 18-cv-01454-RS

Plaintiff,
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

12
13

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

This is one of several attempts by pro se litigant Rudy Meza to challenge rulings by the

17

Santa Rosa Superior Court related to domestic disputes involving his former spouse. Although

18

limited circumstances exist in which federal courts have jurisdiction to review state court rulings,

19

Meza has alleged no facts to support such an outcome here.

20

Meza’s filings that resulted in the opening of this action are less than clear as to his intent.

21

To the extent Maza may have intended to “remove” a state court action, he fails to show any

22

viable basis for removal jurisdiction.

23

To the extent Meza may be attempting to assert affirmative claims against any of the

24

named defendants in this action independently of removal jurisdiction, this order of remand is

25

without prejudice to Meza’s right to bring any such affirmative claims. Meza is cautioned,

26

however, that the allegations he has advanced to date appear, at best, to present nothing more than

27

grounds for potential relief in the state trial and/or appellate courts; nothing alleged would support

28

federal claims.

1

This action is remanded to Sonoma County Superior Court, Case No. SFL-57853 and/or

2

such other related case numbers to which Meza may contend the notice of removal applied, if any.

3

Meza is advised that successive removals absent good cause may result in imposition of

4

substantial financial sanctions.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: April 24, 2018
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO.

2

18-cv-01454-RS