Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02511/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02511-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

ASS’N,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv2511-LAB (WVG)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS;

ORDER OF REMAND; AND

ORDER FORBIDDING REMOVAL

OF THIS ACTION IN FUTURE

vs.

DANNY R. GARLAND, LUCY M.

GARLAND,

Defendant.

In a separate case, 13cv1434-LAB (WVG), Federal National Mortgage Association

v. Garland, Defendant Lucy Garland filed a notice of removal, well as a motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Defendant Danny Garland did not join in either of these.

The Court denied the IFP motion, pointing out that it left open the possibility that Danny

Garland might have income or assets sufficient to pay the filing fee. The Court pointed out

that Danny Garland had not joined in the notice of removal as was required, and also

ordered Defendants to show cause why the action should not be remanded for lack of

jurisdiction. The order discussed the “well-pleaded complaint” doctrine, and cited Holmes

Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831–32 (2002) in support

of its discussion.

- 1 - 13cv2511

Case 3:13-cv-02511-LAB-WVG Document 4 Filed 11/07/13 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

Defendants failed to respond to the Court’s order to show cause, and the action was

remanded on July 3, 2013.

On October 18, 2013, Lucy Garland again removed the identical state court action,

and moved to proceed IFP. This time, she explained that Danny Garland had filed a petition

for bankruptcy in this District’s bankruptcy court. What she failed to mention is that his

bankruptcy petition, number 13-02655-LT13, was dismissed on April 12, 2013 after Danny

Garland failed to file required documents. Because Danny Garland again did not join in the

IFP motion, it is DENIED.

Most of the notice of removal is legal gibberish that has apparently been cut and

pasted from some other document or documents. There are some substantive, though not

meritorious, arguments in the notice of removal. As in the previous removal, Lucy Garland

argues that because she has federal defenses to the unlawful detainer action, this action is

removable. Specifically, she argues that the state court is incorrectly applying state

evidentiary law, resulting in federal constitutional equal protection or due process violations.

As the Court told her previously, federal defenses do not create federal subject-matter

jurisdiction. Furthermore, even assuming the state court is misapplying state law, errors of

state law do not amount to federal constitutional violations. See Little v. Crawford, 449 F.3d

1075, 1083 n.6 (9 Cir. 2006). th

Because most of the removal notice makes no sense, it seems unlikely she could

have complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2)’s requirements that she have undertaken an

inquiry that was reasonable under the circumstances before making her arguments. In

addition, she has already been told that federal defenses do not create jurisdiction, so she

cannot now have a good faith belief that they do. The Court also notes that virtually identical

notices of removal were filed in other cases in this Circuit, including HSBC Bank USA N.A.

v. Garcia, 12cv365 (C.D.Cal., removed March 9, 2012) and U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Llopis,

12cv1289 (E.D.Cal., removed May 14, 2012), followed swiftly by remand. The Court

cautions her that even though she is a pro se litigant, she must obey the same rules that 

/ / /

- 2 - 13cv2511

Case 3:13-cv-02511-LAB-WVG Document 4 Filed 11/07/13 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

apply to other litigants, see King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and that she

is not immune to sanctions.

Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action, it is immediately REMANDED

to the court from which it was removed. Defendants are ORDERED not to remove or attempt

to remove this action to federal court in the future.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 5, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv2511

Case 3:13-cv-02511-LAB-WVG Document 4 Filed 11/07/13 Page 3 of 3