Muzi v. Muniz

See case details

MARTHA R. MUZI v. LESLIE MUNIZ, et al.

Case No. 5:15-cv-02001-PSG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

May 5, 2015

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REMANDING SUA SPONTE AND DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff Martha R. Muniz initiated this unlawful detainer action in state court.¹ Defendant Leslie Muniz subsequently removed the case to federal court² and at the same time, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.³ The parties have not consented to magistrate jurisdiction,⁴ so this matter will be reassigned to a district court judge. The court recommends the case be remanded for

Notes

1

See Docket No. 1-1.

2

See Docket No. 1.

3

See Docket No. 3.

lack of subject matter jurisdiction⁵ and Defendant‘s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 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 their notice of removal, Defendants assert that there is federal question jurisdiction over the case,¹¹ but their position lacks merit. Federal question jurisdiction depends on the contents of the plaintiff‘s well-pleaded complaint and may not be predicated on the defendant‘s counterclaims

or defenses.¹² Here, Muzi‘s well-pleaded complaint asserts a claim based on state law only—that is, unlawful detainer.¹³

As a result, the court recommends the case be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the IFP motions denied as frivolous.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2015

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

4

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

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, 3.

12

See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002); ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L .C. v. Department of Health & Envtl. Quality of St. of Mont., 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).

13

See Docket No. 1-1.

Case Details

Case Name: Muzi v. Muniz

Court Name: District Court, N.D. California

Date Published: May 5, 2015

Citation: 5:15-cv-02001

Docket Number: 5:15-cv-02001

Court Abbreviation: N.D. Cal.