Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01406/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01406-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIANE PATRICIA MAZZI,

Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-1406 FCD JFM PS

vs.

IRENE M. THOR, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and paid the filing fee. On June 20, 2008, plaintiff

filed a complaint 611 pages long, including a notice of removal. 

First, it appears plaintiff is attempting to remove a state court action to federal

court. However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, et seq, only defendants may remove a civil

action. Id. Here, plaintiff was not a defendant in the civil action brought in state court; rather,

plaintiff filed a petition to deem an Arizona death certificate invalid in a probate action. Her

petition was denied by the Placer County Superior Court on July 23, 2007 (Case No. S-PR0001614) (Complaint at 451). 

Because plaintiff was not a defendant in that action, she cannot seek to remove the

state court action to federal court. But even assuming she could be construed as a defendant, the

request was untimely. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). In addition, plaintiff’s petition in state court was

Case 2:08-cv-01406-FCD-JFM Document 8 Filed 08/11/08 Page 1 of 3
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

 Plaintiff has also failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff and the 1

Placer County Superior Court are both citizens of California. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch

267, 7 U.S. 267 (1806) (Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship between

plaintiff and defendants – no party on one side may be a citizen of the same state as the party on

the other side.)

2

denied and it appears the probate action is closed. It would be inappropriate to remove a closed

case to federal court. Thus, plaintiff’s June 20, 2008 notice of removal is ineffective and her

request for removal should be denied. 

Second, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In the state court action, plaintiff challenged a death certificate issued by the

State of Arizona. Plaintiff has provided a copy of the Placer County Superior Court’s order

denying plaintiff’s petition to deem the Arizona death certificate invalid. To the extent plaintiff

is attempting to appeal that denial in this court, this court does not have jurisdiction. This court

does not have appellate jurisdiction over a state court’s decision in a probate matter. 

The Supreme Court has recognized a “probate exception” to otherwise proper

federal jurisdiction. Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 308 (2006) (citing Markham v. Allen,

326 U.S. 490, 494 (1946)). In Marshall, the Supreme Court held in pertinent part:

the probate exception reserves to state probate courts the probate or

annulment of a will and the administration of a decedent's estate; it

also precludes federal courts from endeavoring to dispose of

property that is in the custody of a state court probate court. But it

does not bar federal courts from adjudicating matters outside those

confines and otherwise within federal jurisdiction. 

Id., 547 U.S. at 312. Plaintiff’s attempts to invalidate the death certificate and/or recover

property distributed through the probate proceedings fall squarely within the probate exception. 

This action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).1

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 20, 2008 request to remove her state court action to federal

court be denied; and

Case 2:08-cv-01406-FCD-JFM Document 8 Filed 08/11/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: August 8, 2008.

/001; mazzi.56

Case 2:08-cv-01406-FCD-JFM Document 8 Filed 08/11/08 Page 3 of 3