Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03338/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03338-0/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE KEVIN VERNON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et al.

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-03338 CRB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court alleging four intentional tort causes of action

relating to his arrest in San Francisco on March 5, 2005. Now pending before the Court is

defendant City and County of San Francisco’s Notice of Removal based on federal question

jurisdiction. 

A district court may sua sponte raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. See Galt

G/S v. Hapag-Lloyd AG, 60 F.3d 1370, 1373 (9th Cir. 1995). Removal pursuant to 28

U.S.C. section 1441(a), as defendant purports to execute here, is only appropriate if the

“complaint contains a cause of action that is within the original jurisdiction” of this court. 

Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 653 (9th Cir. 1998). Defendant’s Notice of Removal

contends that “[t]he Complaint in said pending action purports to state claims under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 in that it alleges violations of plaintiff’s federal civil and constitutional

rights.” Defs. Notice of Removal at 2. Yet the Court sees no reference to section 1983 nor
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2006\3338\oscsmj.wpd 2

the U.S. Constitution on the face of the Complaint. See Not. of Removal, Exh. A. 

Defendant, therefore, is hereby ORDERED to show cause as to the Court’s original subject

matter jurisdiction in this matter. Defendant may demonstrate that the Court has such

jurisdiction no later than Friday, June 9, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE