Cathey v. Wilson

Filing 11

ORDER REMANDING CASE. Case remanded to Spokane County Superior Court for all further proceedings. The file is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

ARDYCE R. CATHEY,
NO: 2:14-CV-0045-TOR
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER REMANDING CASE
v.

9
10
11

BERNADINE A. WILSON, Guardian
of the Person for Phillip Cathey, an
incapacitated person,
Defendant.

12
13
14
15

The Court here sua sponte considers its subject matter jurisdiction and
finding that it is lacking, remands the case to Spokane County Superior Court.

16

DISCUSSION

17

This case involves a pro se party, Ardyce Cathey, and filings the intent of

18

which is not entirely clear.1 The Court must first determine whether this matter

19

1

20

pauperis, ECF No. 1, which was granted, ECF No. 3. However, less than a month

On February 10, 2014, Ardyce Cathey filed an application to proceed in forma

ORDER REMANDING CASE ~ 1

1

constitutes a case originally filed with the Court in which Ms. Cathey is a plaintiff,

2

or whether Ms. Cathey is a defendant in a case which she properly removed from

3

state court. On February 10, 2014, Ms. Cathey filed a form titled “Complaint”

4

stating, in addition to the form language, that “Plaintiff alleges: No estate, but

5

Guardian and her Attorney are moving the court for an order directing payment of

6

Guardians Attorney fees. The only money my son receives is Federal Funds.” ECF

7

No. 2 at 1. Ms. Cathey’s name is listed next to “Plaintiff.” Id. On the attached Civil

8

Cover Sheet, Ms. Cathey again listed herself as plaintiff. Id. at 2. She checked the

9

“Federal Question” box as the basis of jurisdiction. Id. at 2. Under “Nature of

10

Suit,” Ms. Cathey checked the “Amer. w/Disabilities-Other” box. Id. And under

11

“Origin,” she checked the “Removed from State Court” box. Under Cause of

12

Action, she cited the statute under which she was filing as “42 U.S.C. 407,” and

13

described her cause again as “No Estate, but Guardian and her Attorney are

14

moving the court for an order directing payment of Guardians Attorney fees by my

15

son Philip V. L. Cathey.” Id. Ms. Cathey also submitted documents from Spokane

16

County Superior Court. ECF No. 4. Though Ms. Cathey listed herself as plaintiff

17

and submitted a complaint, her reference to the case in Spokane County Superior

18
19

later, Ms. Cathey paid the filing fee. Thus, she is no longer proceeding in forma

20

pauperis, and the Court did not perform its standard in forma pauperis screening.

ORDER REMANDING CASE ~ 2

1

Court and submission of state court documents associated with that case indicates

2

that this case should be treated as a removal. Ms. Cathey’s statements as to the

3

nature of the case bolster this conclusion, as they refer to the state court case and

4

offer no grounds for an independent cause of action in this Court.

5

“It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited

6

jurisdiction.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978)

7

(limits on federal jurisdiction “must be neither disregarded nor evaded”); see also

8

United States v. Bravo-Diaz, 312 F.3d 995, 997 (9th Cir. 2002) (“a court of the

9

United States may not grant relief absent a constitutional or valid statutory grant of

10

jurisdiction”). Thus, it is presumed that a federal court lacks jurisdiction” unless

11

the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the

12

Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). A court may consider

13

subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell &

14

Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (the district court had a duty to

15

establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether

16

the parties raised the issue or not). “If at any time before final judgment it appears

17

that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”

18

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). As the Supreme Court explained:

19
20

Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court
may be removed to federal court by the defendant. Absent diversity of
citizenship, federal-question jurisdiction is required. The presence or
absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded

ORDER REMANDING CASE ~ 3

1
2

complaint rule,” which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a
federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded
complaint.

3

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (internal citations omitted).

4

Although the file does not contain the complaint from the state court, the

5

nature of the case does not implicate a federal question. In the document titled

6

“Notice of Removal,” Ms. Cathey asserts that “[t]he Guardian Bernadine A.

7

Wilson is petitioning the Spokane County Superior Court to have her legal fees

8

paid, from my son’s Federal Funds and is asking The court to have me removed as

9

Guardian of the estate.” ECF No. 5 at 3. She states that “[g]arnishment of these

10

funds violates Section 207 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 407).” Id. But

11

this assertion indicates that Ms. Cathey invokes the Social Security Act in defense

12

to the petition for fees; defenses cannot form the basis for federal question

13

jurisdiction. None of the documentation Ms. Cathey submitted provide grounds for

14

federal question jurisdiction. And, as evidenced by the Civil Cover Sheet, the

15

parties are both citizens of this state, ECF No. 2 at 2, so the Court does not have

16

diversity jurisdiction over the matter. Accordingly, the Court finds that it does not

17

have subject matter jurisdiction over the removed case. Thus, under 28 U.S.C.

18

§ 1447(c), the matter must be remanded to the state court.

19

///

20

///

ORDER REMANDING CASE ~ 4

1
2
3
4

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
This case is hereby REMANDED to the Spokane County Superior Court for
all further proceedings.
The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order, furnish

5

copies to counsel and Ardyce Cathey at her address of record, mail a certified copy

6

to the Spokane County Superior Court, and CLOSE the file.

7

DATED May 30, 2014.

8
9

THOMAS O. RICE
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER REMANDING CASE ~ 5