Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00443/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00443-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph A. Bick
Respondent
Anthony Andre Sharp
Petitioner

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY ANDRE SHARP,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0443 GEB JFM P 

vs.

JOSEPH A. BICK, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On February 27, 2008, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Petition for Removal

from State Court to District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(A).” (Id.) However, the statute

specifies that only defendants may remove an action from state court to federal court:

. . . any civil action brought in a State court of which the district

courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be

removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of

the United States for the district and division embracing the place

where such action is pending. . . .

28 U.S.C. § 1446(a)(emphasis added). Accordingly, plaintiff’s petition should be denied and this

action dismissed. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the February 27, 2008 petition be denied

and this action be dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

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)(l). Within twenty

Case 2:08-cv-00443-GEB -JFM Document 3 Filed 03/07/08 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

2

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 6, 2008.

/001; shar0443.56

Case 2:08-cv-00443-GEB -JFM Document 3 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 2