Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01486-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

1 

Case No. 5:15-cv-00901-PSG

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REMANDING SUA SPONTE AND DENYING 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSE A. SANCHEZ, 

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

DONNA VIERUA, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-01486-PSG

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

REMANDING SUA SPONTE AND 

DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

 

Plaintiff Jose A. Sanchez initiated this unlawful detainer action in state court.1

 Defendant 

Donna Vierua subsequently removed the case to federal court2 and at the same time filed a motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis.3

 Sanchez then declined magistrate judge jurisdiction,4 so this matter 

will be reassigned to a district judge. The court recommends the case be remanded for lack of 

 

1 See Docket No. 1. 

2 See id. 

3 See Docket No. 2. 

4 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Docket No. 4. 

Case 5:15-cv-01486-EJD Document 5 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

Case No. 5:15-cv-00901-PSG

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REMANDING SUA SPONTE AND DENYING 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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

For the Northern District of California

subject matter jurisdiction5 and Vierua’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as 

frivolous.6 

When presented with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must first 

determine if the applicant satisfies the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a).

7

 Section 1915(a) does not require an applicant to demonstrate absolute destitution.8 An 

IFP application will be denied and the action dismissed, however, if the party seeking IFP status 

has filed a pleading or petition that is legally frivolous.9 A submission is “frivolous” for IFP 

purposes and therefore subject to summary dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) “where it lacks an 

arguable basis either in law or in fact.”10

In her notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Vierua asserts that there is federal 

question jurisdiction over the case based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act 2009.11 Her

position lacks merit. Federal question jurisdiction depends on the contents of the plaintiff’s wellpleaded complaint and may not be predicated on the defendant’s counterclaims or 

 

5 Cf. Louden, LLC v. Pajarillo, Case No. 12-cv-2638-EMC, 2012 WL 3155151, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 2, 2012); 3925 Alameda Prop. LLC v. Brainerd, Case No. 12-cv-4924-EMC, 2012 WL 

5199170, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2012); Compass Bank v. Goble, Case No. 12-cv-1885-WQH, 

2012 WL 3229155, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2012); Bank of Am., Nat. Ass’n v. Soliven, Case No. 

10-cv-1844-IEG, 2010 WL 3636260, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2010). 

6 Cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hoke v. Arpaio, 92 F.3d 1192, 1192 (9th Cir. 

1996). 

7 See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir.1984). 

8 See McCone v. Holiday Inn Convention Ctr., 797 F.2d 853, 854 (10th Cir.1982) (citing Adkins v. 

E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). 

9 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

10 Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Hoke, 92 F.3d at 1192. 

11 See Docket No. 1 at 2; see also 12 U.S.C. § 5220. 

Case 5:15-cv-01486-EJD Document 5 Filed 04/06/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:15-cv-01486-EJD Document 5 Filed 04/06/15 Page 3 of 3