Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02314/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02314-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Breach of Contract- Insurance

---

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 - 09cv2314

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAL MOORE

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2314 JM(BLM)

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO

STATE COURT; DENYING

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

vs.

ANITA MYERS

Defendant.

On May 11, 2009 Plaintiff Hal Moore commenced an unlawful detainer action

against Anita Myers in state court, seeking damages in an amount less than $10,000 for

Defendant’s alleged failure to pay rent. On October19, 2009 Defendant filed a Notice

of Removal and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Notice of Removal

does not identify any basis for the court to exercise either diversity or federal question

jurisdiction. 

The court 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 (1868)).

Case 3:09-cv-02314-JM-BLM Document 3 Filed 10/20/09 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 - 09cv2314

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). 

The state court complaint alleges a single state law claim that Defendant failed

to pay her monthly rent. Neither the complaint nor the Notice of Removal identifies

any violation of federal law. Consequently, the court concludes that it lacks subject

matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. §§1331 or 1332 and remands this matter to

state court. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“Only statecourt actions that originally could have been filed in fededral court may be removed to

federal court by the defendant.”).

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

County of San Diego and denies the motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:09-cv-02314-JM-BLM Document 3 Filed 10/20/09 Page 2 of 2