Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00065/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00065-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1441rl Removal- Rent, Lease, &amp; Ejectment

---

1

19cv65-WQH-LL

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Philip Bullard,

Plaintiff,

v.

Darrick Smith; Christina Olmedo 

Hernandez; Mauricio Olmedo

Hernandez; and DOES 1-10 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19cv65-WQH-LL

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

On January 10, 2019, Defendants Darrick Smith, Christina Olmedo Hernandez, and 

Mauricio Olmedo Hernandez initiated this action by filing a Notice of Removal of State 

Court Civil Case No. 56-2018-00521717-CL-UD-VTL. (ECF No. 1). The attached state 

court complaint for unlawful detainer, ECF No. 1-1, is an action initiated by Plaintiff

seeking possession of the property and $2750.00 from Defendants in overdue rent on a 

property in Ventura, California. On January 10, 2019, a Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis was also filed by Defendant Darrick Smith. (ECF No. 2). 

I. Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

Case 3:19-cv-00065-WQH-LL Document 3 Filed 01/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

19cv65-WQH-LL

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

$400.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5. An action may proceed despite a party’s 

failure to pay only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To 

proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116

(9th Cir. 1965).

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Defendant Darrick Smith indicates 

that Defendant receives “disability, or worker’s compensation payments.” (ECF No. 2 at 

1). Defendant did not, however, provide a response in the corresponding box indicating 

“the amount that [Defendant] received and what you expect to receive in the future.” Id.

The Court has not been provided with sufficient financial information as to Defendant to 

determine if he qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action.

II. Initial Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)

The determination of whether a party may proceed in forma pauperis does not 

complete the inquiry. The court is also required to screen cases filed by parties proceeding 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed 

to dismiss a case filed pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute if, at any time, it determines 

that the allegation of poverty is untrue, the action is frivolous or malicious, the complaint 

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or the action seeks monetary relief 

against an immune defendant. Additionally, a federal court has an independent duty to 

assess whether federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. 

v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court 

had a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, 

whether the parties raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 

339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). Because subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the 

parties, a district court must remand a removed case if it lacks jurisdiction over the matter. 

Kelton Arms Condominium Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 

(9th Cir. 2003); accord Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 

Case 3:19-cv-00065-WQH-LL Document 3 Filed 01/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

19cv65-WQH-LL

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

1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final 

judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall

be remanded.”).

In relevant part, the federal removal statute provides:

Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action 

brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have 

original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to 

the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing 

the place where such action is pending.

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is 

proper.” Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th 

Cir. 2009). “The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction,” id., and 

removal jurisdiction “‘must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in 

the first instance’” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106 

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per 

curiam)).

District courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions that arise 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case 

‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the 

vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal 

law.’” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(modification in original) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 

463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). “[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is 

governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction 

exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly 

pleaded complaint.” Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d at 1091; Ultramar Am. Ltd. v. Dwelle, 

900 F.2d 1412, 1414 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Ordinarily, the existence of federal question 

jurisdiction is determined from the face of the complaint.”). “In determining the existence 

of removal jurisdiction, based upon a federal question, the court must look to the complaint 

Case 3:19-cv-00065-WQH-LL Document 3 Filed 01/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

19cv65-WQH-LL

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

as of the time the removal petition was filed. Jurisdiction is based on the complaint as 

originally filed” Abada v. Charles Schwab & Co., 300 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(citation and quotation marks omitted).

In this case, Defendants indicated on the civil cover sheet filed along with the state 

court complaint that the basis of federal jurisdiction in this matter is “Federal Question” 

and the cause of action is “Title 28, sec. 1441(6)”. (ECF No. 1-2). 28 U.S.C. § 1441 is the 

federal removal statute, however, and is not an independent basis of jurisdiction. Looking 

to the complaint, the parties are not diverse and the complaint does not on its face allege a 

cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States that 

would give this Court original jurisdiction over this matter.

1

 Plaintiff’s complaint asserts 

a single claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. 

See Muhammad v. N. Richmond Senior Hous., Inc., 2015 WL 1154209, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Mar. 13, 2015) (“California federal courts have repeatedly held that unlawful detainer cases 

brought under California’s unlawful detainer statute do not raise federal questions.”); Fed. 

Nat'l. Mortg. Ass'n v. Enshiwat, 2012 WL 683106, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012) 

(“Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state court.”); Franks v. 

Franks, 2017 WL 1735169, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2017) (same). As currently pled, were

Defendant to be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or should Defendant pay the 

filing fee, this action would be remanded back to state court for lack of federal subjectmatter jurisdiction. 

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

(ECF No. 2) is denied without prejudice. Defendant shall, within thirty (30) days of the 

date this Order is filed, either (1) pay the filing fee, or (2) submit a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis with the required financial information. If Defendant fails to submit 

 

1

In deciding whether to amend his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Defendant is advised to consider 

whether this action is more appropriately transferred to local state court.

Case 3:19-cv-00065-WQH-LL Document 3 Filed 01/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

19cv65-WQH-LL

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

payment or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days of the date of this 

Order, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice.

Dated: January 28, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00065-WQH-LL Document 3 Filed 01/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5