Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01094/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01094-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLY ANTHONY BREWER, No. CIV.S-05-1094 DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUSAN ELLEN BREWER,

Defendant.

__________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a notice of

removal. That notice indicates that plaintiff is attempting to

remove to this court an action brought by him in Butte County

Superior Court, Brewer v. Brewer, Case No. FL019249. However, 28

U.S.C. § 1441(a) allows only “the defendant or the defendants” to

remove a case from state court to federal court. See also Am. Int’l

Underwriters (Philippines), Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 1253,

1260 (9th Cir. 1988)(“The right to remove a state court case to

federal court is clearly limited to defendants.”).

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01094-MCE -DAD Document 11 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This state civil action be summarily remanded to the

Butte County Superior Court; and

2. The Clerk be directed to close this case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 6, 2005.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\brewer.remand

Case 2:05-cv-01094-MCE -DAD Document 11 Filed 06/07/05 Page 2 of 2