Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02416/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02416-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Temekisa Davis
Defendant
Sommerset Place
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SOMMERSET PLACE, L.P., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TEMEKISA DAVIS, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-02416-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

On November 20, 2015, defendant Temekisa Davis, proceeding pro se, removed 

this unlawful detainer action from Sacramento County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. Ms. Davis 

also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. As explained below, the court 

REMANDS the case to the Sacramento County Superior Court and DENIES as moot Ms. Davis’ 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 

When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original 

jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(a). A federal district court may remand a case sua sponte where a defendant has 

not established federal jurisdiction. See Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th 

Cir. 1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). Indeed, “[i]f at 

Case 2:15-cv-02416-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 2
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

any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 

the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal 

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. Ms. Davis’s Notice of Removal asserts that the court has federal question jurisdiction. 

ECF No. 1 at 2. Under § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil 

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

Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit “arises under” federal law “only when 

the plaintiff’s statement of [her] own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].” 

Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Federal question jurisdiction 

cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 

U.S. 49, 60 (2009). 

Here, the form complaint plaintiff filed in state court is for unlawful detainer only, 

based on state law. See ECF No. 1 at 6–8. Although Ms. Davis appears to have asserted defenses 

under federal law in her Answer, ECF No. 1 at 2, 9, a defense cannot serve as the basis for federal 

question jurisdiction, Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60. Plaintiff is the master of the complaint and may, as 

here, “avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading solely state-law claims.” Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 

410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). Because the complaint is not based on federal law, the court 

does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action. 

II. REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

For the foregoing reasons, the court has determined sua sponte that it lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction, and thus remands the case to the Sacramento County Superior Court. Cf. 

Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090. As a result, defendant’s motion for in forma pauperis status is 

denied as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 11, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-02416-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 2