Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01477/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01477-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE DAVIS, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1477 GEB GGH P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On July 20, 2007, defendants removed this action from state court. On August 3,

2007, the court dismissed the complaint with thirty days to file an amended complaint. On

August 10, 2007, plaintiff filed a document titled “Amended Complaint.” This document

contains two short paragraphs in which plaintiff states that he did not file a civil rights complaint. 

Plaintiff appears to dispute the removal of this action.

A motion to remand is the proper procedure for challenging removal. See N. Cal.

Dist. Council of Laborers v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 69 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir.

1995). If plaintiff seeks to challenge the removal of this action, he must file a motion to remand. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that a motion to remand will most likely be denied because his complaint

alleges violation of his constitutional rights. See Complaint, pp. 8-9 alleging due process

violations; 28 U.S.C. § 1441(an action filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the

Case 2:07-cv-01477-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 09/10/07 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

2

federal court would have had original subject-matter jurisdiction over the action). 

Although labeled “amended complaint,” plaintiff’s August 10, 2007, document is

not truly an amended complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff is granted twenty days from the date of

this order to file a proper amended complaint.

On September 4, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. Defendants paid the filing fee when they removed this

action. For this reason, plaintiff is not required to file an in forma pauperis application.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The amended complaint filed August 10, 2007, is disregarded; plaintiff is

granted twenty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint; failure to comply

with this order will result in the recommendation of dismissal of this action;

2. Plaintiff’s September 4, 2007, motion for extension of time is denied as

unnecessary. 

DATED: 9/10/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

dav1477.ord

Case 2:07-cv-01477-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 2