Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00150/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00150-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAURA BYNUM,

Petitioner,

v.

COUNTY OF SISKIYOU BOARD OF 

SUPERVISORS, 

 Respondent, 

KIMBERLY OLSON, 

Real Party in Interest/Defendant

Case No. 2:20-cv-00150-TLN-DMC

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant/Real Party in Interest1 Kimberly 

Olson’s (“Olson”) Notice of Removal and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 

3.) The Court notes Olson has also filed a Motion to Dismiss the removed action for failure to 

state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 4.) For the reasons set 

forth below, the Court hereby REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of California, County 

of Siskiyou, due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and DENIES Olson’s Motion to Proceed in 

Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3) and Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) as moot. 

 

1

See ECF No. 2 (Certification and Notice of Interested Parties); ECF No. 1 at 7 (Petition 

attached to Notice of Removal). 

Case 2:20-cv-00150-TLN-DMC Document 6 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 23, 2019, Petitioner Laura Bynum (“Petitioner”) filed a Verified Petition 

for Writ of Mandamus against Respondent County of Siskiyou Board of Supervisors

(“Respondent”) and Olson as Defendant/Real Party in Interest for immediate calendar preference 

pursuant to California Elections Code § 13314 (“§ 13314”). (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, at 

7–13 (citing § 13314(a)(3)).) The Petition seeks removal of Olson’s name from the ballot of the 

upcoming March 3, 2020 election pursuant to § 13314,2on the basis that Olson falsely certified to 

the Office of the Siskiyou County Clerk and Registrar of Voters that she was an eligible candidate 

for local office when, in fact, Olson has three prior felony convictions that involve the theft of 

public money.

3 Olson is therefore not eligible for an elected office under California Election 

Code § 20. (Pet., ECF 1 at ¶¶ 1–2, 7, 10–12.) On January 21, 2020, Olson filed a Notice of 

Removal removing the Petition from the Siskiyou County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.) 

II. STANDARD OF LAW

28 U.S.C. § 1441 permits the removal to federal court of any civil action over which “the 

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “Removal is 

proper only if the court could have exercised jurisdiction over the action had it originally been 

filed in federal court.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). A district court 

has federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or 

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “the 

defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 

 

2 Section 13314(a)(1) permits the elections official to “seek a writ of mandate alleging that 

an error or omission has occurred, or is about to occur, in the placing of a name on, or in the 

printing of, a ballot ... or any neglect of duty has occurred, or is about to occur.” 

3 Petitioner asserts she received certified copies from the Placer County Superior Court of 

Olson’s felony convictions in Case No. 62-002004, for violations of California Welfare & 

Institutions Code §§ 10980(c)(2) (fraud to obtain aid-over $400), 14014 (false statements to 

receive health care), and 11540 (false eligibility statement), with a special allegation of excessive 

loss over $50,000 under California Penal Code § 12022.6(a). (Pet., ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 9–11.) The 

Petition further notes that Olson attempted to have her felony convictions reduced to a 

misdemeanor and expunged in 2013, but the court denied her requests. (Id. at ¶ 11.) 

Case 2:20-cv-00150-TLN-DMC Document 6 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Furthermore, “[i]f the district court at any time 

determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action, it must remedy the 

improvident grant of removal by remanding the action to state court.” California ex rel. Lockyer 

v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838, as amended, 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied 544 

U.S. 974 (2005).

The “presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 

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.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 386. 

Federal court jurisdiction therefore cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or 

third-party claim raising a federal question. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009); 

Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009). 

III. ANALYSIS

Olson removed the above-entitled action to this Court on the basis of federal question 

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Olson argues that California Elections Code § 20 (“§ 20”),

effective in 2012, and its retroactive application barring her from running for local office due to 

her convictions in 2000, constitutes an ex post facto violation of Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. 

Constitution. Further, Olson argues that § 20 raises federal question issues pertaining to her First 

and Fourteenth Amendment rights to run for and hold public office. (ECF No. 1 at 2–4.) 

Moreover, Olson argues the phrase “theft of public money,” as used in the Petition to describe 

Olson’s prior convictions, is actually a reference to the federal offense codified at 18 U.S.C. § 

641, rather than any existing state statute, and therefore establishes federal question jurisdiction. 

(ECF No. 1 at 2 fn. 3, 3.) Olson’s arguments, however, are unavailing. 

Even if Olson’s federal Constitutional rights are implicated by Petitioner’s application of 

§ 20, it is clear that the Petition itself contains only a single request for relief pursuant to §§ 20 

and 13314 of the California Elections Code. (Pet., ECF 1 at ¶¶ 1–2, 7, 10–12.) The instant 

Petition therefore relies solely on California state law and does not state any claims under federal 

law. Based on the well-pleaded complaint rule articulated above, removal cannot be based on a 

defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal question. Caterpillar 

Case 2:20-cv-00150-TLN-DMC Document 6 Filed 02/21/20 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Inc., 482 U.S. at 392; see also Vaden, 556 U.S. at 49; Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d at 

1042–43. Thus, while Olson seems to contend in the Notice of Removal that Petitioner has 

violated several federal laws, this assertion relates only to an affirmative defense or potential 

counterclaim, which cannot be considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the 

face of Petitioner’s Petition. See Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60–62. 

In short, because the state court Petition only indicates one request pursuant to California 

Elections Code § 13314, this action does not present a federal question. There being no apparent 

grounds for federal jurisdiction,

4

it is appropriate to remand this case, sua sponte, for lack of 

federal subject matter jurisdiction. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 

F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (“the district court ha[s] a duty to establish subject matter 

jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to the Superior 

Court of California, County of Siskiyou and DENIES Olson’s Motion to Proceed in Forma 

Pauperis (ECF No. 3) and Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2020

 

4 Olson does not argue that the parties are diverse or that the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000, nor does it appear that diversity jurisdiction exists here.

Case 2:20-cv-00150-TLN-DMC Document 6 Filed 02/21/20 Page 4 of 4