Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-mc-80014/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-mc-80014-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL EVERETT,

Defendant.

Case No. 20-mc-80014-CW (WHO)

ORDER RE PRE-FILING REVIEW 

AND REMANDING CASE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2

Daniel Everett, who is an inactive attorney representing himself, has made multiple 

attempts to remove attorney disciplinary actions brought against him by the State Bar of 

California. On May 2, 2017, Judge Susan Illston remanded his first attempt to do so in Case. No. 

17-cv-01716-SI. Judge Illston adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 

Donna M. Ryu, which explained why this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over state 

bar disciplinary actions under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1443, 1331, and 1441. See Order Reassigning Case to 

District Judge, Report and Recommendation to Remand Case, Case. No. 17-cv-01716-DMR [Dkt. 

No. 18]; Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Remanding Action, Case No. 17-cv01716-SI [Dkt. No. 21]. 

Since 2017, Everett has attempted to remove attorney disciplinary actions at least six 

times. See Case No. 17-cv-03595-SI; Case No. 18-cv-00051-SI; Case No. 18-cv-05879-SI; Case 

No. 19-mc-80246-VC; Case No. 19-mc-80294-EMC; Case No. 19-cv-5945-DMR. On February 

1, 2019, Judge Susan Illston issued an order directing the Clerk that “no further notices of removal 

shall be accepted from Daniel Everett for filing without the approval of this Court.” Order 

Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Remand, Remanding Action, and Imposing Sanctions, Case No. 

18-cv-05879-SI [Dkt. No. 32] (hereinafter “Prefiling Order”). 

Case 4:20-mc-80014 Document 3 Filed 01/23/20 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

On December 17, 2019, the State Bar of California initiated a set of proceedings against 

Everett in the San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CPF 19-516962. The State Bar 

requests, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 6180.8, that the state court 

assume jurisdiction over the law practice of Everett and appoint the State Bar as its designee to act 

under its direction “to obtain physical possession of the client files and the client trust account and 

to undertake such other duties as may be required to protect the interests of the clients and others.” 

See PFR, Exhibit at 5 [Dkt. No. 1-1].1 

On the same day, Everett attempted to remove the case to this court. See Petition for 

Removal, Case No. 19-mc-80294-EMC [Dkt. No. 1]. The State Bar filed a motion to close the 

case pursuant to the Prefiling Order issued by Judge Illston. See Administrative Motion to Close 

Case, Case No. 19-mc-80294-EMC [Dkt. No. 3]. On January 8, 2020, Judge Edward M. Chen 

granted the State Bar’s motion, finding that the matter was “erroneously filed contrary to a 

prefiling order filed February 1, 2019 in State Bar of California v. Daniel Everett, 18-cv-05879-

SI” and that “the action is clearly not subject to removal.” See Order Granting State Bar of 

California’s Motion to Close Case, Case No. 19-mc-80294-EMC [Dkt. No.5]. 

The state court case continued, and on January 16, 2020, Judge Ethan P. Schulman granted 

the State Bar’s application for assumption of jurisdiction over Everett’s law practice. The 

following day, Everett filed yet another petition for removal of that state court case, which is 

before me now. Petition for Removal (“PFR”) [Dkt. No. 1]. Everett also filed an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [Dkt. No. 2]. 

I have reviewed the PFR in accordance with the Prefiling Order issued by Judge Illston and 

determine that this action is clearly not subject to removal.2 As stated in the Prefiling Order, this 

 

1 California Business and Professions Code § 6180 provides that “[w]hen an attorney engaged in 

law practice . . . becomes an inactive licensee of the State Bar . . . notice of cessation of law 

practice shall be given and the courts of this state shall have jurisdiction.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 

§ 6180.

2 There are two prefiling orders filed against Everett in this district. On August 14, 2013, Judge 

Claudia Wilken issued an order holding that all future attempts by Everett to remove state court 

case No. CUD 12-642904, an eviction action brought against Everett, shall be forwarded to Judge 

Wilken for prefiling review. See Pre-Filing Order, Case No. 13-cv-02706 [Dkt. No. 23]. Everett 

attached a copy of Judge Wilken’s prefiling order as an exhibit to his PFR. See Dkt. No. 1-2. To 

Case 4:20-mc-80014 Document 3 Filed 01/23/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

court “does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying state attorney disciplinary 

claim.” See Prefiling Order. 

The Clerk is directed not to accept the PFR for filing. The action is deemed never to have 

been removed, and the pending in forma pauperis motion is therefore moot. This miscellaneous 

case is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2020

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

 

clarify, Judge Illston’s prefiling order is operative here because it addresses Everett’s multiple 

attempts to remove state bar disciplinary actions. 

Case 4:20-mc-80014 Document 3 Filed 01/23/20 Page 3 of 3