Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02001/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02001-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

1 

Case No. 5:15-cv-02001-PSG

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REMANDING SUA SPONTE AND DENYING 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

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 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MARTHA R. MUZI, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LESLIE MUNIZ, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-02001-PSG

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

REMANDING SUA SPONTE AND 

DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

 

 Plaintiff Martha R. Muniz initiated this unlawful detainer action in state court.1 Defendant 

Leslie Muniz subsequently removed the case to federal court2 and at the same time, filed a motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis.3

 The parties have not consented to magistrate jurisdiction,4 so this 

matter will be reassigned to a district court judge. The court recommends the case be remanded for 

 

1 See Docket No. 1-1. 

2 See Docket No. 1. 

3 See Docket No. 3. 

4 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

Case 5:15-cv-02001-BLF Document 6 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

Case No. 5:15-cv-02001-PSG

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REMANDING SUA SPONTE AND DENYING 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

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 

For the Northern District of California 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction5 and Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis denied as 

frivolous.6 

When presented with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must first 

determine if the applicant satisfies the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a).7 Section 1915(a) does not require an applicant to demonstrate absolute destitution.8 An 

IFP application will be denied and the action dismissed, however, if the party seeking IFP status 

has filed a pleading or petition that is legally frivolous.9 A submission is “frivolous” for IFP 

purposes and therefore subject to summary dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) “where it lacks an 

arguable basis either in law or in fact.”10

In their notice of removal, Defendants assert that there is federal question jurisdiction over 

the case,11 but their position lacks merit. Federal question jurisdiction depends on the contents of 

the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint and may not be predicated on the defendant’s counterclaims 

 

5 Cf. Louden, LLC v. Pajarillo, Case No. 12-cv-2638-EMC, 2012 WL 3155151, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 2, 2012); 3925 Alameda Prop. LLC v. Brainerd, Case No. 12-cv-4924-EMC, 2012 WL 

5199170, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2012); Compass Bank v. Goble, Case No. 12-cv-1885-WQH, 

2012 WL 3229155, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2012); Bank of Am., Nat. Ass’n v. Soliven, Case No. 

10-cv-1844-IEG, 2010 WL 3636260, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2010). 

6 Cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hoke v. Arpaio, 92 F.3d 1192, 1192 (9th Cir. 

1996). 

7 See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir.1984). 

8 See McCone v. Holiday Inn Convention Ctr., 797 F.2d 853, 854 (10th Cir.1982) (citing Adkins v. 

E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). 

9 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

10 Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Hoke, 92 F.3d at 1192. 

11 See Docket No. 1 at 2, 3. 

Case 5:15-cv-02001-BLF Document 6 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

Case No. 5:15-cv-02001-PSG

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REMANDING SUA SPONTE AND DENYING 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

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 

For the Northern District of California 

or defenses.12 Here, Muzi’s well-pleaded complaint asserts a claim based on state law only—that 

is, unlawful detainer.13

As a result, the court recommends the case be remanded to state court for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction and the IFP motions denied as frivolous. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 5, 2015 

 _________________________________ 

 PAUL S. GREWAL 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

 

12 See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002); ARCO 

Envtl. Remediation, L.L .C. v. Department of Health & Envtl. Quality of St. of Mont., 213 F.3d 14 

1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). 

13 See Docket No. 1-1. 

Case 5:15-cv-02001-BLF Document 6 Filed 05/05/15 Page 3 of 3