Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02745/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02745-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACK OTTOVICH,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEO BAUTISTA,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-2745 MCE CKD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly 

construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 

1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the 

first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party invoking removal 

bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 

(9th Cir. 2009). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 

be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

In this case, a removal petition was not even filed. Petitioners

1

simply submitted some 

state court documents and asserted that the state court action was removed. The state court 

documents appear to relate to a probate matter that was finalized in 2004. Removal based on 

 

1

 It appears that petitioners are erroneously captioned on the court’s docket as plaintiffs in the 

underlying action.

Case 2:16-cv-02745-MCE-CKD Document 4 Filed 12/02/16 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

federal question jurisdiction is proper only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 

There is no federal question presented in the probate matter. It also appears that diversity 

jurisdiction is lacking. Petitioners have failed to meet the burden of establishing federal 

jurisdiction and the matter should therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State Farm 

Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375-376 (9th Cir. 1997).

Petitioners have filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the court will 

recommend remand of this action, the motion will be denied without prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners’ motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied without prejudice; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be summarily remanded 

to the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.

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 fourteen 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 seven 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 1, 2016

4 ottovich2745.ifp.rem

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-02745-MCE-CKD Document 4 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 2