Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03840/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03840-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 1

 Defendant’s papers indicate that he is the plaintiff; however, he is the defendant in the 2

underlying state court action and would not be eligible to remove a case as a plaintiff. See 28

U.S.C. § 1441(b).

Case No. C 08-03840 JF (PVT)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION ETC.

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 9/9/08**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAVID HURD, et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

DAVID EVANS, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 08-03840 JF (PVT)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; ORDER 1

DENYING EX PARTE MOTION TO

SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

AND APPLICATION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[re: doc. nos. 2, 5]

Pro se Defendant David Evans filed the present action under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, alleging 2

denial of due process by a California state court. A default judgment has been entered against

Defendant in an unlawful detainer action. After the judgement was entered, Defendant filed a

notice of removal and an ex parte motion to set aside the judgment, along with an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. Defendant claims that his due process rights were violated because

Case 5:08-cv-03840-JF Document 9 Filed 09/09/08 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

Case No. C 08-03840 JF (PVT)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION ETC.

(JFLC1)

he did not have sufficient time to respond to the state court complaint and was unable to file a

proper petition for a fee waiver. 

This Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter, and removal is not appropriate. 

Generally, removal to federal court is proper only if the state court claim involves a federal

question or there is diversity between the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Here, the underlying

unlawful detainer action involved private parties, and no federal question is evident from

Defendant’s filings. There is no diversity of citizenship in the underlying state court action

because all parties are California residents. Notwithstanding these observations, Defendant

apparently intends to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1443, which states: 

Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State

court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States

for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of

such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of

citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction

thereof;

(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for

equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be

inconsistent with such law.

The Supreme Court has held that a party seeking removal under § 1443 must satisfy a

two-part test. First, the denied right must “arise[] under a federal law ‘providing for specific civil

rights stated in terms of racial equality.’” Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975)

(citations omitted). Second, it must be shown that without removal the petitioner would be

denied or unable to enforce the federal right in state court. Id. 

Defendant has not alleged any denial of rights related to racial equality. The California

state courts (for example, California Court of Appeal) provide an avenue for Defendant to appeal

the judgment against him and to raise any due process claims related to the trial court’s

Case 5:08-cv-03840-JF Document 9 Filed 09/09/08 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

Case No. C 08-03840 JF (PVT)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION ETC.

(JFLC1)

procedural rules. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) This matter is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

(2) Defendant’s ex parte motion to set aside the default judgment is DENIED;

(3) Defendant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

DATED: September 9, 2008

___________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Court

Case 5:08-cv-03840-JF Document 9 Filed 09/09/08 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

Case No. C 08-03840 JF (PVT)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION ETC.

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Gary Weston Sullivan 

Email: ltym@aol.com 

David Evans

10830 Minette Drive

Cupertino, CA 95014

Case 5:08-cv-03840-JF Document 9 Filed 09/09/08 Page 4 of 4