Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lori Harmon v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 27, 2012

LORI HARMON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, invokes 28 U.S.C. § 1441 to remove to this court an action initiated in the Butte County Superior Court. In her initial pleading filed in this court, which plaintiff captions as "Petition for Removal," plaintiff attaches a copy of a complaint to quiet title plaintiff filed in the state court on April 19, 2012. Because it appeared that plaintiff was attempting to remove to this court a state court action in which she was also the plaintiff, the court directed plaintiff to show cause why the purported removal was not patently defective. In response, plaintiff explains that she is removing an unlawful detainer action filed against her in state court on February 3, 2012, and not the action she filed on April 19, 2012.*fn1

Given this clarification, the order to show cause will be discharged.

While the removal now appears at conform to the procedural requirements, at least in substance if not exact form, the court cannot find any basis for federal jurisdiction over this removed case. Plaintiff states that this matter is properly before this court as raising a federal question. Unlawful detainer, however, is purely a matter of state law and does not, in and of itself, implicate any federal law. To the extent plaintiff believes that defendants have violated her federal statutory or constitutional rights, the proper course of action would be to initiate a separate action alleging same, either in this court or the appropriate state court. It seems that plaintiff may have done just that by choosing state court for her quiet title action. Plaintiff will again be required to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. Failure to respond may result in dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court order. See Local Rule 110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The June 26, 2012, order to show cause is discharged; and

2. Plaintiff shall show further cause in writing within 30 days why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.