Gross Mortgage v. Sabir Al-Mansur
Filing
14
ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis ; granting 12 Motion to Remand Action to the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. The Case Management Conference scheduled for 12/9/2013 is VACATED. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
GROSS MORTGAGE,
7
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
vs.
Case No.: 13-cv-02944-YGR
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND REMANDING
ACTION TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
SABIR AL-MANSUR,
Defendant.
12
13
14
15
Defendant Sabir Al-Mansur removed this action to federal court on June 26, 2013. (See
Dkt. No. 1.) Concurrently, he filed an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a
16
civil action in forma pauperis if the court is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the
17
filing fees necessary to pursue the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The court may deny in forma
18
pauperis status, however, if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is
19
frivolous or without merit. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Tripati v. First
20
National Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). In addition, federal courts are under a
21
duty to raise and decide issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time it appears
22
subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Augustine v. United States,
23
704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). If the Court determines that subject matter jurisdiction is
24
lacking, the Court must dismiss the case. Id.
25
Having reviewed the “Notice of Civil Rights Removal to Unlawful Detainer Action Under
26
28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) and Other Sections as Cited” (“Notice of Removal”), the Court finds that it
27
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this unlawful detainer action and that Defendant’s removal of
28
this action was frivolous.
Defendant removed this unlawful detainer action bearing state court case no. RG12654035
1
2
from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. As a preliminary matter, the Court
3
notes that Defendant previously removed this same state court action to federal court, which was
4
assigned Case No. 13-cv-00398-EMC in this district (“Prior Removed Action”). In that case, the
5
Honorable Edward M. Chen remanded the action to Alameda County Superior Court because the
6
court lacked diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. (See Dkt. Nos. 11 & 21 in Prior
7
Removed Action.) In addition, Judge Chen explained that Defendant had failed to make a requisite
8
showing for removal under 28 U.S.C. section 1443 (“Section 1443”), and that removal under
9
Section 1443 was thus improper. (Id.)
Northern District of California
In the present action, Defendant has filed a Notice of Removal that repeats the same
11
United States District Court
10
arguments raised in the notice of removal in the Prior Removed Action, with the addition of certain
12
federal statutes as a further reason that removal under Section 1443 is proper. The Court finds that
13
Defendant’s additional arguments in his Notice of Removal do not provide the Court with subject
14
matter jurisdiction, nor do these statutes—combined with Defendant’s conclusory arguments—
15
make his removal under Section 1443 proper. The Court finds that Defendant has now improperly
16
removed state court case no. RG12654035 twice. Defendant is hereby advised that he may not
17
“remove the same action [multiple times] where each removal is based on the same grounds.” St.
18
Paul & C. Ry. Co. v. McLean, 108 U.S. 212, 217 (1883); Midlock v. Apple Vacations West, Inc.,
19
406 F.3d 453, 457 (7th Cir. 2005); S.W.S. Erectors, Inc. v. Infax, Inc., 72 F.3d 489, 492–93 (5th
20
Cir. 1996)).
The Court also notes that Defendant has, this year alone, removed state court unlawful
21
22
detainer actions four times—two relating to state court case no. RG12654035 (including the instant
23
action) and two relating to state court case no. RG12654029.1 In each of these other three cases,
24
the matter was remanded based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or improper removal
25
under Section 1443. Further, the undersigned has been assigned to three other matters involving
26
removals of unlawful detainer actions by Defendant based on the same grounds of removal asserted
27
herein, and in each instance, the action was remanded. Defendant’s history of removing actions
28
1
See Case Nos. 13-cv-00399-PJH and 13-cv-02945-WHA.
2
1
without proper basis is further support for this Court’s finding that Defendant’s removal in this
2
action was both without merit and frivolous.
3
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Application to Proceed in Forma
4
Pauperis and REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. The
5
Clerk of this Court is further ordered to forward certified copies of this Order and all docket entries
6
to the Clerk of the Alameda County Superior Court.
7
The Case Management Conference scheduled for December 9, 2013 is hereby VACATED.
8
This Order terminates Dkt. No. 2.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
Dated: November 22, 2013
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?