Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01405/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01405-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD JAMES JEFFERSON No. 2:09-cv-1405-MCE-GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Officer Curtis, individually

Doe Zack, a Store manager,

and WAL-MART, INC.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On May 21, 2009, Plaintiff Edward James Jefferson

(“Plaintiff”) filed the present action in pro se, alleging

deprivations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Some

seven months later, attorney James Joseph Lynch filed a Notice of

Substitution of Counsel purporting to effectuate his substitution

of counsel for both Plaintiff and Cliff Hoffman, who previously

had no connection whatsoever to this lawsuit.

Case 2:09-cv-01405-MCE -KJN Document 13 Filed 01/19/10 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

In filing the substitution, however, Attorney Lynch failed to

comply with the terms of Eastern District Local Rule 182(g),

which specifies that a substitution request must include a court

order. Consequently Mr. Lynch has not yet properly substituted

in as Plaintiff’s counsel in this case.

On the same day he filed the purported substitution,

Attorney Lynch also filed a document entitled “Notice of Removal”

in which he purports to remove one, and possibly two, state court

actions in which Cliff Hoffman was or is a party. Examination of

the documents pertaining to those actions, as attached to the

Notice of Removal, reveals no allegations supporting even a

colorable claim for federal jurisdiction. Both involve claims

sounding solely in state law. Moroever, the Notice of Removal

contains no suggestion that jurisdiction may rest on diversity

grounds. Instead, Mr. Lynch appears to simply assert that

because the state court litigation involving Mr. Hoffman is

somehow “related” to the claims asserted by Mr. Jefferson, that

alone is enough to invoke federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Lynch is wrong, and his Notice of Approval is improper

despite the fact that he has not yet properly substituted in to

this matter in the first place and consequently has no standing

to offer any argument before the Court at this juncture. An

action may not be removed to federal court unless the complaint,

on its face, shows that the case “arises under” federal law. See

Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463

U.S. 1, 10 (1983). The pleadings in Mr. Hoffman’s case contain

no such allegations.

/// 

Case 2:09-cv-01405-MCE -KJN Document 13 Filed 01/19/10 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

For all the above reasons, the purported Notice of Removal

(Docket Nos. 9, 10) is consequently STRICKEN as improper. While

the Court recognizes that Attorney Lynch also included a request

for party joinder within the Notice of Removal, that request must

be made separately once Mr. Lynch is properly representing

Plaintiff or anyone else in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01405-MCE -KJN Document 13 Filed 01/19/10 Page 3 of 3