Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00814/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00814-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1446 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 - 07cv0814

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE CO., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07cv0814 JM(AJB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

REMANDING ACTION TO STATE

COURT

vs.

MARY BOCHUM and STEPHANIE

ASHLEY AND ASSOCIATES,

Defendants.

Defendant Mary Bochum moves for leave to prosecute this action in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915. The court denies the motion without prejudice

because Plaintiff has failed to submit a completed motion and application. The motion

filed with this court omitted the second page of the application. Accordingly, the court

is unable to adequately assess Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

The court also sua sponte remands this action to state court. See Maniar v. FDIC,

979 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1992) (the court may sua sponte remand an action to state

court). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. “Without jurisdiction the court

cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when

it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact

and dismissing the cause.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83,

94 (1998) (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264

Case 3:07-cv-00814-JM-AJB Document 3 Filed 10/04/07 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

27

28

- 2 - 07cv0814

(1868)). Accordingly, federal courts are under a continuing duty to confirm their

jurisdictional power and are even “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt

arises as to [its] existence. . . .” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429

U.S. 274, 278 (1977) (citations omitted). 

On January 11, 2007 Plaintiffs commenced an unlawful detainer action in the

Superior Court for the County of Riverside. Plaintiff Ameriquest Mortgage Co. and

Defendants Stephanie Ashley and Mary Bochum are alleged citizens of the State of

California. (Notice of Removal, ¶¶ 2, 5; Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2). On May 4, 2007 Defendant

Bochum removed this action based upon diversity of citizenship. As the parties are

alleged to be citizens of the State of California, diversity of citizenship is lacking under

28 U.S.C. §1332(a).

In sum, the court sua sponte remands this action to the Superior Court for the

County of Riverside. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 4, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-00814-JM-AJB Document 3 Filed 10/04/07 Page 2 of 2