Jeff Miller v. Joseph Glenn Osborne et al
ORDER Granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Order to Show Cause re: Remand; and Order Vacating Hearing. Osborne is ordered to show cause why the case should not immediately be remanded. He may do so by filing his written opposition to the motion for remand by 4/18/2018. The hearing on 3 the motion for remand is vacated. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 4/11/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jdt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 18cv279-LAB (NLS)
JOSEPH GLENN OSBORNE, et
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
ORDER VACATING HEARING
Defendant Joseph Osborne, proceeding pro se, removed this action from
state court, identifying federal question as the basis for the Court’s exercise of
jurisdiction. Although the claims are pled under state law, Osborne argues they
are completely preempted by federal law.
Osborne did not pay the filing fee, but filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). The IFP motion shows Osborne lacks the funds to pay the filing
fee, and leave to proceed IFP is GRANTED.
Actions commenced under the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), are subject
to a mandatory screening.
In addition, the Court is obligated to inquire into
jurisdiction over removed action and to remand cases where jurisdiction is lacking,
sua sponte if necessary. See Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle,
429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977) (holding that federal courts must inquire sua sponte
whenever its jurisdiction is in doubt); Smith v. Mylan, Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1044 (9th
Cir. 2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. ' 1447(c)) (holding that district courts must remand
removed case sua sponte if at any time before final judgment it appears that
jurisdiction is lacking).
Plaintiff Jeff Miller, who is represented by counsel, filed a motion to
remand with a hearing date of April 16, 2018. As the removing party, Osborne
bears the burden of showing that the Court has jurisdiction over this case. See
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Under Civil Local Rule
7.1(e)(2), the opposition was due April 2, but Osborne has filed none. Under Civil
Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), failure to file an opposition may be construed as consent to
the motion’s being granted.
Osborne is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the case should not
immediately be remanded. He may do so by filing his written opposition to the
motion for remand by April 18, 2018. If he fails to show cause within the time
permitted, this action will be remanded. The hearing on the motion for remand is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 11, 2018
Hon. Larry Alan Burns
United States District 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?