Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01451/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01451-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kaur Dalbir
Plaintiff
Richard Greg Pomares
Defendant

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAUR DALBIR, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

RICHARD GREG POMARES, )

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:05cv1451 FVS DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF NOTICE

OF REMOVAL

On November 16, 2005, Defendant RICHARD GREG POMARES (“Defendant”) filed a

notice of removal of a state unlawful detainer action, Stanislaus County Superior Court case

number 37252. Defendant also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the

complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof

if the court determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state

a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

cured by amendment.

The right to remove a case from state to federal court is entirely a creature of statute; the

types of cases that may be removed and the conditions under which they may be removed are

Case 1:05-cv-01451-FVS-DLB Document 5 Filed 01/25/06 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

governed entirely by federal statutes. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 et. seq. The defendant seeking removal

of an action to federal court has the burden of establishing the grounds for federal jurisdiction in

the case and the burden of showing that he has complied with the procedural requirement for

removal. California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy 375 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Defendant makes only vague references to the reasons he seeks removal. He complains

of fraudulent service in the state action, “fraudulent and unconstitutional proceedings,” and

violations of his rights to a jury trial and procedural due process. Motion for Removal, at 2-3. 

However, these allegations do not render the underlying action removable. A cause of action

under federal law arises “only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal

law.” In re Miles, 430 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2005). In other words, the complaint filed by

Mr. Dalbir in the Stanislaus County Court must present questions of federal law for this case to

be removable. That is not the case, as the unlawful detainer complaint contains only issues of

state law. Defendant’s allegations of constitutional violations occurring during the state action

do not make the action removable.

The Court finds no basis for removal of this action. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY

RECOMMENDS that the Notice of Removal BE DISMISSED in its entirety for lack of

jurisdiction. In doing so, the Court recommends that the dismissal be without leave to amend as

the deficiencies are not curable. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties

may file written objections with the Court. The 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. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 24, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01451-FVS-DLB Document 5 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 2