Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01885/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01885-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

1 FILED 

2 2011 AUG - 3 AM II: I0 

3 Cl t~ 

~ot:!l i1L~-:H 

i-, , r;i 1 '( -r C 

4 

BY 1!/tai'1--­ ______ ,TPIp' , 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

11 

12 COMPASS BANK, Civil No. 12cv1885 WQH (JMA) 

13 Plaintiff, 

ORDER 14 vs. 

15 KENT GOBLE; Does I through X, inclusive 

Defendants. 16 

17 

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF 18 

19 II Nos. 2-3) filed by Defendant Kent Goble. 

Background 20" I. 

On July 31, 2012, Defendant Goble removed a complaint for unlawful detainer from the 21 

22 Superior Court ofCalifornia for the County ofSan Diego where it was originally filed and given 

23 casenumber37-2011-00039769-CL-UD-NC. (ECFNo. 1). Onthat same day, Defendant Goble 

24 filed the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF No.2). 

Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 25 .. II. 

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court ofthe United 

26 

2711 States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 

28 II U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiffs failure to prepay the entire fee 

1 12cvl885 WQH (lMA) 

Case 3:12-cv-01885-WQH-JMA Document 4 Filed 08/03/12 Page 1 of 3
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in fonna pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

2 II § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

3 II In the declaration accompanying the Motion to Proceed IFP, Defendant Goble states that 

411 he receives $2,400 a month from his employment. Defendant states that he does not have a 

II checking account or any other significant assets such as an automobile, real estate, stocks, bonds 

6 II or securities. Defendant states that he financially supports his wife and son. 

7 II The Court has reviewed Defendant's declaration and finds it is sufficient to show that 

8 II Defendant is unable to pay the fee required to maintain this action. The Motion for Leave to 

911 Proceed in Fonna Pauperis is GRANTED. (ECF No.2). 

II III. Initial Screening 

11 II After granting IFP status, the Court must dismiss the case sua sponte ifthe case "fails to 

12 II state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. 

13 II Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001). In addition, "[i]fthe court detennines at anytime that 

14 II it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 

II see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 F.2d 278,280 (9th Cir. 1974) ("It has 

16 II long been held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack ofjurisdiction"). 

17 II Federal courts-unlike state courts-are courts oflimited jurisdiction and lack inherent or 

18 II general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can only adjudicate those cases in which the 

19 II United States Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. See Kokkonen v. 

II Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove a civil action from 

21 II state court to federal court based on either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. See 28 

2211 U.S.C. § 1441. "The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 

23 II well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 

24 II question is presented on the face ofthe plaintiffs properly pleaded comp1aint.. .. [T]he existence 

II of a defense based upon federa11aw is insufficient to support jurisdiction." Wayne v. DHL 

26 II Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (quotation and citation omitted). "The 

27 II removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the right ofremoval requires resolution 

2811 in favor ofremand." Moore-Thomasv. Alaska Airline. Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9thCir. 2009) 

2 12cvl885 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:12-cv-01885-WQH-JMA Document 4 Filed 08/03/12 Page 2 of 3
1 II (citation omitted). The presumption against removal means that "the defendant always has the 

211 burden of establishing that removal is proper." Id. 

3 II The sole basis for federal jurisdiction stated in the Notice ofRemoval is that Defendant 

411 has a defense to the Complaint based upon Plaintiffs alleged failure to comply with a federal 

5 II statute. "[T]he existence ofa defense based upon federal law is insufficient to support [federal] 

611 jurisdiction." Wayne, 294 F.3d at 1183. The Notice of Removal does not adequately state a 

711 basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. 

8 II IV. Conclusion 

911 The Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. (ECF No.2). 

10 II Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this action is REMANDED for lack of subject-matter 

11 II jurisdiction to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, where it was 

12 II originally filed and assigned case number 37-2011-00039769-CL-UD-NC. 

13 II IT IS SO ORDERED. 

14­

1511 

16" DATED' . m2­

WILLIAM Q. HAY 

17 United States DistricfJudge 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 12cvl885 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:12-cv-01885-WQH-JMA Document 4 Filed 08/03/12 Page 3 of 3