Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02559/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02559-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

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

K. E. JERVI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2559 LKK KJM PS

vs.

CINDY BRITTON,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff has filed a notice of removal of a state proceeding involving plaintiff’s

request for an order restraining defendant from obtaining a passport for their child. Under 28

U.S.C. § 1446(a), only defendants are authorized to remove a state action to federal court. This

action was therefore improvidently removed. Moreover, the state action involves a domestic

dispute regarding a joint custody agreement over which this court has no jurisdiction. Exercise

of jurisdiction by this court would impinge upon the state court’s ability to supervise the custody

of the minor child. Thus, even if removal were proper, this court should abstain from exercising

jurisdiction. See generally McIntyre v. McIntyre, 771 F.2d 1316, 1319 (9th Cir. 1985).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action

be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.

/////

Case 2:07-cv-02559-LKK -KJM Document 3 Filed 12/18/07 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

2

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)(l). Within twenty

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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: December 17, 2007. 

006

jervi.rem

Case 2:07-cv-02559-LKK -KJM Document 3 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 2