Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00752/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00752-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1442 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA MAY BOYER, DONNA JEAN

ROWE-WILLIS, TROY “J” WILLIS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANGELA Y. ARMSTRONG, in her

private capacity, CHRIS LEWIS, in

his private capacity, R. STEVEN

LAPHAM, in his private capacity,

et al.,

Defendants.

CIV S-05-0752 GEB PAN PS

ORDER 

NFN—

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint in San

Joaquin County Superior Court April 8, 2005, seeking damages from

federal officers for the execution of an allegedly baseless

federal search warrant at plaintiffs’ residence on January 28,

2004. Defendants are R. Steven Lapham, an Assistant U.S.

Attorney, Angela Armstrong, an FBI agent, and Chris Lewis, an

Case 2:05-cv-00752-GEB-PAN Document 14 Filed 06/30/05 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

2

investigator for the California Department of Insurance. On

April 18, 2005, defendants removed the action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1442, and 1331. May 23, 2005, plaintiffs moved

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to remand this action to state

court for lack of jurisdiction.

Removal of state court actions to federal court is

permitted for “any civil action brought in a State court of which

the district courts of the United States have original

jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Removal statutes are

strictly construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica

Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). “Federal

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the

right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d

564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The burden of establishing federal

jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.” Harris v.

Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir.

1994) (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 790 F.2d

769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Plaintiffs assert remand is warranted on the grounds (1)

plaintiffs are “private Citizens living in the California

Republic, a Union State outside the territorial jurisdiction of

the United States;” and (2) defendants are “private Citizens

residing in California . . . being sued in a private civil action

. . . for damages caused . . . while ‘impersonating’ official

corporate officers.” Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to

pursue their action “under Common Law in the jurisdiction of a

Case 2:05-cv-00752-GEB-PAN Document 14 Filed 06/30/05 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

3

California court of proper general jurisdiction venue.” Citing

the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I,

Section 8, Clauses 17 and 18, plaintiffs assert that state courts

“have exclusive jurisdiction of property and persons located

within their borders.”

Removal of this action is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§

1442, 1441 and 1331. 28 U.S.C. § 1442 expressly authorizes

removal of a state court civil action against an officer of the

United States or any person acting under that officer sued in

their “individual capacity for any act under color of such

office.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441 generally authorizes removal of state

court actions “of which the district courts of the United States

have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 accords to the

district courts original jurisdiction of actions “arising under

the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 

Plaintiffs’ complaint expressly alleges only “Violation of

Constitutional Rights under the Amendments Fourth, Fifth, Nineth

[sic], Tenth and Fourteenth of the Constitution for the United

States of America” and thus asserts this court’s original

jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs’ reliance on the Tenth Amendment’s state

reservation of powers and Congress’ powers to legislate for and

exercise authority over the District of Columbia (U.S.

Constitution, Article I, Clause 17) and to make such laws

necessary and proper to the execution of Congress’ numerous

powers (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Clause 18) does not support

Case 2:05-cv-00752-GEB-PAN Document 14 Filed 06/30/05 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

4

plaintiffs’ argument. Nor do plaintiffs make a relevant

distinction between a “United States district court” and

“District Court of the United States.” 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to remand is denied.

Defendants shall file and serve their dispositive motion

no later than September 2, 2005; plaintiffs shall file and serve

their opposition within 30 days of service of defendants’ motion;

defendants may file and serve a reply, if any, within 10 days

after service of plaintiffs’ opposition.

So ordered.

Dated: June 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00752-GEB-PAN Document 14 Filed 06/30/05 Page 4 of 4