Jeff Miller v. Joseph Glenn Osborne et al

Filing 4

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFF MILLER, Case No.: 18cv279-LAB (NLS) Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 JOSEPH GLENN OSBORNE, et al., 15 16 Defendant. 17 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REMAND; AND ORDER VACATING HEARING 18 19 Defendant Joseph Osborne, proceeding pro se, removed this action from 20 state court, identifying federal question as the basis for the Court’s exercise of 21 jurisdiction. Although the claims are pled under state law, Osborne argues they 22 are completely preempted by federal law. 23 Osborne did not pay the filing fee, but filed a motion to proceed in forma 24 pauperis (“IFP”). The IFP motion shows Osborne lacks the funds to pay the filing 25 fee, and leave to proceed IFP is GRANTED. 26 Actions commenced under the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), are subject 27 to a mandatory screening. In addition, the Court is obligated to inquire into 28 jurisdiction over removed action and to remand cases where jurisdiction is lacking, 1 18cv279-LAB (NLS) 1 sua sponte if necessary. See Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 2 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977) (holding that federal courts must inquire sua sponte 3 whenever its jurisdiction is in doubt); Smith v. Mylan, Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1044 (9th 4 Cir. 2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. ' 1447(c)) (holding that district courts must remand 5 removed case sua sponte if at any time before final judgment it appears that 6 jurisdiction is lacking). 7 Plaintiff Jeff Miller, who is represented by counsel, filed a motion to 8 remand with a hearing date of April 16, 2018. As the removing party, Osborne 9 bears the burden of showing that the Court has jurisdiction over this case. See 10 Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Under Civil Local Rule 11 7.1(e)(2), the opposition was due April 2, but Osborne has filed none. Under Civil 12 Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), failure to file an opposition may be construed as consent to 13 the motion’s being granted. 14 Osborne is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the case should not 15 immediately be remanded. He may do so by filing his written opposition to the 16 motion for remand by April 18, 2018. If he fails to show cause within the time 17 permitted, this action will be remanded. The hearing on the motion for remand is 18 VACATED. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 11, 2018 22 23 24 Hon. Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 2 18cv279-LAB (NLS)

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?