Orozco v. Escalante et al
Filing
5
ORDER denying as moot 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, and Remanding case to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, North County Division. The Court certifies that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 2/18/16 (cc: Superior Court) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SILVIA ORZCO,
CASE NO. 16cv384-LAB (NLS)
12
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;
AND
vs.
13
14
RAYMOND ESCALANTE, et al.
ORDER OF REMAND
Defendants.
15
16
17
Defendant Raymond Escalante, proceeding pro se, removed this unlawful detainer
18
action from the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, North County Division. He filed
19
a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, giving only his own financial information.
20
Neither of the other two Defendants joined in the removal.
21
A district court must examine notices of removal and remand actions if the Court lacks
22
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc.,
23
159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998).
24
The notice of removal admits diversity jurisdiction is lacking. Because the complaint
25
for unlawful detainer arises under state law, it appears federal question jurisdiction is lacking
26
as well. Escalante does raise federal defenses or counterclaims, but counterclaims and
27
defenses do not create federal question jurisdiction. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S.
28
49, 59 (2009).
-1-
16cv384
1
Instead, Escalante relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1443, alleging unfair treatment by the state
2
courts against him and other minority litigants in unlawful detainer actions. The Supreme
3
Court has articulated a two-part test for examining actions removed under § 1443. First, the
4
removing party must assert, as a defense, rights given to him by explicit statutory enactment
5
protecting equal racial civil rights. See Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998–99 (9th Cir.
6
2006) (citing Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority). Escalante has not done this.
7
Instead, he points to his rights under the U.S. Constitution and statutes protecting
8
homeowners generally. He also names some federal civil rights statutes without claiming
9
they apply in his case or attempting to show how they would provide him a defense.
10
Second, the removing party must assert that state courts will not enforce that right,
11
and support that allegation by reference to a state statute or a constitutional provision
12
purporting to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights. Id. Escalante has not
13
done this either.
14
Instead, Escalante appears to acknowledge that the Supreme Court’s decisions forbid
15
removal of his case, and asks this Court to re-evaluate and overrule those decisions. (Notice
16
of Removal at 14:1–9.) The Court lacks the power to do that.
17
In short, jurisdiction is lacking and this case must be remanded. Because neither of
18
the other Defendants filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis, it is unclear whether the
19
other two might be able to pay the filing fee. In any event, the motion to proceed in forma
20
pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. This action is ORDERED remanded to the Superior Court
21
of the State of California for the County of San Diego, North County Division.
22
The Court certifies that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
DATED: February 18, 2016
25
26
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge
27
28
-2-
16cv384
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?