Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00680/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00680-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1334 Bankruptcy Appeal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17cv680-WQH-NLS

ORDER

v.

MICHAEL LOUIS BRANCH;

MICHAEL L. BRANCH, INC. and

DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On April 4, 2017, Plaintiff Jennifer Scott, proceeding pro se, initiated this action

by filing a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). 

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the

United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of

$400.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5. An action may proceed despite a party’s

failure to pay only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

“To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d

114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965).

The documents filed by Plaintiff state that she is the sole caregiver for her spouse

who is severely disabled and has been on hospice in recent years. (ECF No. 2). The

average monthly income of Plaintiff and her spouse is significantly less than their

- 1 - 17cv680-WQH-NLS

Case 3:17-cv-00680-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 10/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

combined monthly expenses. After considering Plaintiff’s motion, the Court determines

that Plaintiff cannot afford to pay the filing fee in this case and is eligible to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

II. Initial Screening of the Complaint

A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a) is also subject to mandatory review and sua sponte dismissal to the

extent it “is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

The standard used to evaluate whether a complaint states a claim is a liberal one,

particularly when the action has been filed pro se. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

106 (1976). However, even a “liberal interpretation . . . may not supply elements of the

claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). “[P]ro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 provides that “[a] pleading that states a claim

for relief must contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to

provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation omitted). 

The Complaint filed by Plaintiff repeatedly references 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), the

statute providing for the removal of civil actions to federal court, and states, “PLEASE

TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action hereby removes to this

Court the above-captioned action.” (ECF No. 1 at 1). The Complaint states that

removal is proper because the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1334. A complaint from the Superior Court of the State of California for the

County of San Diego and a petition from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

- 2 - 17cv680-WQH-NLS

Case 3:17-cv-00680-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 10/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

Southern District of California are attached to the Complaint. Id. 

Even if Plaintiff intended to file a Notice of Removal, removal would be

improper under these circumstances. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action

brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original

jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court

of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action

is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The removal statute does not provide for removal

by a plaintiff. Id. In this case, Plaintiff commenced this action in state court and cannot

remove her own action to federal court. See Progressive West Ins. Co. v. Preciado, 479

F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553

F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009)(“The removal statute is strictly construed, and any

doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand.”). 

The document filed by Plaintiff is titled “Complaint for Damages Discharged in

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy for Continued Collection Efforts Against Creditor” against

Defendants Michael Louis Branch; Michael L. Branch Inc. and DOES 1 through 20,

inclusive. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that she filed a civil complaint in state court

on January 16, 2016. Id. at 1. Plaintiff attaches the state court complaint as Exhibit A. 

(ECF No. 1-2). In the state action, Jennifer Scott alleges the following causes of action:

(1) “lack of standing to record lis pendens”; (2) intentional infliction of emotional

distress, (3) slander of title, and (4) declaratory relief. Id. The Complaint in this case

alleges, “At the time the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff had an ongoing bankruptcy case

in the United States Bankruptcy Court.” (ECF No. 1 at 2). The Complaint alleges that

“Plaintiff’s bankruptcy, schedule F listed [Defendants] as a creditor of Plaintiff.” Id.

The Complaint alleges, “In the bankruptcy filing, Plaintiff inadvertently failed to list the

underlying lawsuit on Schedule ‘F’.” Id. The Complaint alleges that “[t]he bankruptcy

was finalized and Plaintiff/debtor’s debts were discharged.” Id. The Complaint alleges

that Plaintiff “filed a Notice of Discharge with the Superior Court, however the case

was not dismissed as Plaintiff/debtor was entitled.” Id. The Complaint alleges that this

- 3 - 17cv680-WQH-NLS

Case 3:17-cv-00680-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 10/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

action is for “continued collection efforts on debts discharged in her bankruptcy.” Id.

at 1. The Court concludes that the factual allegations of the Complaint do not identify

a cause of action that Plaintiff seeks to bring against Defendants in this Court or the

relief she seeks from this Court. The Complaint fails to allege “sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The

Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED. (ECF No. 2). The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No.

1). Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date

this Order is issued. 

DATED: October 16, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 17cv680-WQH-NLS

Case 3:17-cv-00680-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 10/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4