Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05688/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05688-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 06-5688 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED PETITION OF REMOVAL AND CIVIL

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

**Filed 11/16/2006**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JUNE FOSTER,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

KNTV TELEVISION, INC., et. al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-5688 JF (PVT)

ORDER1 DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED

PETITION OF REMOVAL AND

CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, AND DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

[re: docket no. 21, 22]

On September 15, 2006, Plaintiff June Foster (“Foster”) filed a notice of removal of the

instant action from the Santa Clara Superior Court. On October 6, 2006, this Court denied

Foster’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, noting the action’s apparent lack of merit. On

October 10, 2006, Defendants moved to dismiss the action and/or strike the notice of removal. 

On October 16, 2006, Defendants moved to remand the action to the state court. Defendants

argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Foster’s action and that removal was

Case 5:06-cv-05688-JF Document 32 Filed 11/16/06 Page 1 of 4
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

 At least thirty days have elapsed since receipt of the complaint, since notice of removal

was filed on September 15, 2006. 

2

Case No. C 06-5688 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED PETITION OF REMOVAL AND CIVIL

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

improper because only a defendant may remove an action and because the action has already

proceeded to final judgment in state court. Oral argument for both motions is scheduled on

December 22, 2006. 

On October 30, 2006, Foster filed a “Request for Permission of Leave of Court to File an

Amended Petition and Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights, Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure Rule 15” and a second application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

On November 14, 2006, Defendants moved to dismiss and/or strike the amended petition. 

Oral argument for this motion is scheduled on January 26, 2007.

Since removal must be effected within thirty days of receipt of the complaint, a removal

petition may not be amended after this thirty day period except to “clarify defective allegations of

jurisdiction previously made.” Barrow Development Co. v. Fulton Insurance Co., 418 F.2d 316,

317 (9th Cir. 1969) (quotation marks omitted). The thirty day period expired before Foster filed

her motion on October 30, 2006,2 and Defendants have brought challenges to the Court’s

jurisdiction over this matter that assert more significant bars to Foster’s action than defective

allegations of jurisdiction that may be clarified. Accordingly, the Court will resolve the

jurisdictional challenges contained in the motions scheduled for hearing on December 22, 2006,

before it considers Foster’s motion to amend her pleading. The Court will deny the instant

motion without prejudice to Foster’s renewal of the motion if she prevails on the motions

scheduled for hearing on December 22, 2006.

The Court has considered the arguments contained in Foster’s second application to

proceed in forma pauperis. The Court concluded in its October 6, 2006, order that Foster’s

action is without merit on its face. The Court reaffirms this conclusion. The Court does not

ignore or underestimate the ways in which Foster asserts she has been injured. However, it

appears from the face of the complaint that the Court likely lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

Case 5:06-cv-05688-JF Document 32 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 4
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 3

Case No. C 06-5688 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED PETITION OF REMOVAL AND CIVIL

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

Accordingly, the Court will deny the application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice

to Foster’s renewal of the application if she prevails on the motions scheduled for hearing on

December 22, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 16, 2006.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05688-JF Document 32 Filed 11/16/06 Page 3 of 4
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 4

Case No. C 06-5688 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED PETITION OF REMOVAL AND CIVIL

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Krista Stevenson Johnson kjohnson@littler.com, akawase@littler.com 

Notice will be delivered by other means to: 

June Foster

P.O. Box 2134

San Leandro, CA 94577

Case 5:06-cv-05688-JF Document 32 Filed 11/16/06 Page 4 of 4