Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01167/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01167-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 Defendant Esteban Munoz, who is proceeding pro se, removed this case from the Superior 

Court of Fresno County on July 28, 2014. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 1. The state court case is 

an unlawful detainer action filed by Plaintiff against Defendant. Defendant asserts that the basis 

for removal is the presence of a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, based on the conduct of 

state court judges. 

 On August 4, 2014, the Magistrate Judge sua sponte remanded the matter for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. See Doc. No. 8. The Defendant appealed, and on January 12, 2015, 

the Ninth Circuit remanded the matter with instructions to vacate the Magistrate Judge’s order. 

See Doc. No. 17. The Ninth Circuit indicated that a district judge could view the Magistrate 

Judge’s order as a report and recommendation. See id. On January 15, 2015, the matter was 

assigned to the undersigned. The Court will follow the Ninth Circuit’s instructions.

HUMBERTO YEVERINO,

Plaintiff

v.

ESTEBAN MUNOZ,

Defendant

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01167-AWI-GSA 

ORDER VACATING AUGUST 4, 2014 

ORDER and ORDER REMANDING 

CASE TO THE FRESNO COUNTY 

SUPERIOR COURT 

(Doc. Nos. 8, 17) 

Case 1:14-cv-01167-AWI-GSA Document 20 Filed 01/16/15 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

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s August 4, 2014 order (Doc. No. 8) is VACATED and 

CONVERTED into a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636; 

2. The parties may file objections to the report and recommendation (Doc. No. 8) on or by 

January 30, 2015;1and

3. The parties may file any replies to objections on or before February 6, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 16, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

1

 The Court reminds the parties that there is no mailbox rule for non-prisoners in the Eastern District of California. 

The objections must be in the Clerk’s actual possession on or by January 30, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-01167-AWI-GSA Document 20 Filed 01/16/15 Page 2 of 2