Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01844/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01844-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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

27

28

- 1 - 10cv1844

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO.10-CV-1844-IEG (BJS)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. No. 2); and 

(2) DISMISSING ACTION.

vs.

PLACIDO F. SOLIVEN,

Defendant.

Defendant Placido Soliven (“Defendant”) proceeding pro se has filed a Notice of Removal,

along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendant has not paid the $350

civil filing fee required to commence the action in this court. For the reasons stated herein, the Court

GRANTS the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and sua sponte DISMISSES the action for lack

of removal jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

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

except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. §

1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to prepay the entire fee 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). 

Case 3:10-cv-01844-IEG-BGS Document 3 Filed 09/14/10 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

27

28

- 2 - 10cv1844

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s affidavit of assets and finds the affidavit sufficiently

shows that he is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action. Defendant

is self-employed, and has earned $10,010 since January 1, 2010. Aside from owning a vehicle and

$130 in a checking account, Defendant does not have any other assets or savings. Accordingly, the

Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of Court shall file the

Notice of Removal without prepayment of the filing fee. 

II. Initial Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

After granting in forma pauperis status, the Court must dismiss the case if the case “fails to

state a claim on which relief may be granted” or is “frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)

“not only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that

fails to state a claim). Here, Defendant seeks to remove an unlawful detainer action brought against

him by Plaintiff Bank of America, National Association in state court. In the Complaint, Plaintiff

alleges it purchased Defendant’s property at a foreclosure sale, but Defendant continues in possession

of the property. Plaintiff seeks possession of the property, as well as the reasonable value for

Defendant’s use and occupancy of the property in the amount of $30 per day.

Lack of removal jurisdiction may be raised by the Court sua sponte. See Valdez v. Allstate

Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004). “Any civil action” commenced in state court is removable

if it might have been brought originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Exxon Mobil

Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563 (2005). Thus, the Court must determine whether

there is either diversity or federal question jurisdiction. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,

392 (1987). Defendant contends there is both. The burden is on Defendant to establish grounds for

federal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

In this case, it is clear from the Notice of Removal and state court Complaint that there is no

basis for federal jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction does not exist, because Defendant has made no

showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“The district courts

shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum

or value of $75,000 . . . .). The Complaint specifically alleges the amount demanded does not exceed

Case 3:10-cv-01844-IEG-BGS Document 3 Filed 09/14/10 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

27

28

- 3 - 10cv1844

$10,000. See Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 700 (9th Cir. 2007) (a removing

defendant has a heavy burden where the state court complaint specifically seeks less than $75,000).

Defendant’s assertion that the property at issue is worth more than $75,000 is of no significance. The

Complaint does not seek adjudication of rights to the property, but seeks the reasonable value for

Defendant’s continued use and occupancy of the property. 

Federal question jurisdiction also does not exist, because the Complaint does not assert any

claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

The Complaint only alleges one state law cause of action for unlawful detainer. In the Notice of

Removal, Defendant asserts this is a civil rights action over which this Court has jurisdiction, citing

several federal statutes. However, the Court must look to the Complaint, not to Defendant’s potential

defenses or counterclaims, to determine whether any of the claims “arise under” federal law for

removal purposes. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (“[F]ederal

jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly

pleaded complaint.”).

Therefore, neither diversity jurisdiction nor federal question jurisdiction exists. Because this

case could not have originally been brought in federal court, it is not removable.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and sua

sponte dismisses this action. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2010

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:10-cv-01844-IEG-BGS Document 3 Filed 09/14/10 Page 3 of 3