Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01202/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01202-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL No. CIV.S-05-1202 FCD DAD PS

SERVICES GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ANTHONY MARTINI,

Defendant.

__________________________/

Defendant, proceeding pro se, has filed a notice of removal

attempting to remove to this court a civil action brought against him

in state court in Florida. The documents attached to the notice of

removal indicate that in the Florida state action plaintiff seeks to

recover damages from defendant resulting from his alleged theft of

computer hardware and software.

The notice of removal filed by defendant alleges

jurisdiction lies in this court because “Martini will NEVER GET A

FAIR HEARING with CORRUPT JUDGES THAT ARE MEMBERS OF THE GOOD OLE

Case 2:05-cv-01202-FCD-DAD Document 3 Filed 11/08/05 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

2

BOYS NETWORK in Sarasota County of The State of Florida.” (Notice of

Removal at 1.) The notice further alleges that defendant is “asking

for A DEMOCRATIC JUDGE ONLY to hear my applications since I have seen

so much corruption among the REPUBLICANS in all of my case.” (Id.) 

Such allegations are not sufficient to establish removal

jurisdiction. Nor are the allegations that defendant is

“countersuing” plaintiff in the Florida state court action for filing

“false reports” regarding defendant to the United States Secret

Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and “Immigration.” (Id. at

2.) Even assuming defendant’s counterclaim raises a federal

question, the existence of such a counterclaim cannot provide the

basis for federal question jurisdiction on removal. The court's

jurisdiction is determined by looking to the plaintiff's well-pleaded

complaint. See Franchise Tax Board of California v. Construction

Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California, 463 U.S. 1, 10

(1983); Rath Packing Co. v. Becker, 530 F.2d 1295, 1303-04 (9th Cir.

1975). The state court complaint from the Florida action indicates

no basis for federal jurisdiction.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This state civil action be summarily remanded to the

County Court, in and for Sarasota County, Florida; and

2. The Clerk be directed to close this case.

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)(1). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

Case 2:05-cv-01202-FCD-DAD Document 3 Filed 11/08/05 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

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 7, 2005.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\martini1202.f&r

Case 2:05-cv-01202-FCD-DAD Document 3 Filed 11/08/05 Page 3 of 3