Hafer v. Dist. Attorney

• Decision Date: 02 August 2022
• Docket Number: 1:22-cv-00951 BAK (HBK) (PC)
• Parties: DECHERI HAFER, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

DECHERI HAFER, Plaintiff,
v.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-00951 BAK (HBK) (PC)

United States District Court, E.D. California

August 2, 2022

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THIS ACTION

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff DeCheri Hafer, proceeding pro se, originally filed a “Notice of Motion for Removal Pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1443 and 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441, and 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1332 With Memorandum of Points and Authorities” in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 22, 2022. (Doc. 1). On July 28, 2022, District Judge John A. Kronstadt ordered the action be transferred to this Court because all named defendants in the state court action reside in this district. (Doc. 4).^[1]

Following review of Plaintiff's removal notice, and for the reasons given below, the court will recommend this action be dismissed.

1

DISCUSSION

Applicable Legal Standards

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides as follows: “Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, 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.” (Emphasis added).

Section 1443 of Title 28 of the United States Code states:

Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending

(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof

(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.

28 U.S.C. § 1443 (emphasis added).

Removal jurisdiction “must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation & quotation marks omitted); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (removal statute “is strictly construed and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance” [internal quotations & citations omitted]); MercedIrr. Dist. v. County of Mariposa, 941 F.Supp.2d 1237, 1258 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (“'Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance'”). “If at 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).

2

Analysis

Plaintiff's Notice of Removal

Briefly stated, Plaintiff's notice of removal is 54 pages long and includes more than 20 “cause[s] of action, and reason[s] for removal.” (Doc. 1). Plaintiff cites to sections 1332,^[2]1441 and 1443 of Title 28 of the United States Code as the basis for removal and references Kern County Superior Court case number S1500cv281484, Hafer v. City of Bakersfield, et al. (Id.at 1.) Generally speaking, Plaintiff contends she was denied the right to a fair trial, due process, “and the civil rights to default, and default judgment pursuant to Federal [Rule] of Civil Procedure 55.” (Id. at 2). Attached as exhibits to Plaintiff's notice are the following:

1. a letter dated October 15, 2014, from the Office of the County Counsel for the County of Kern, directed to Kern County Superior Court Judge Sidney P. Chapin enclosing a proposed order granting a motion to quash service (id. at 55);

2. a copy of the Order Granting Motion to Quash Service of Plaintiff's Summons and Complaint filed October 16, 2014 (id. at 56);

3. a copy of Plaintiff's Request for Accommodations by Persons with Disabilities and Response form filed January 6, 2015 (id. at 57);

4. a Declaration by Plaintiff filed November 3, 2014 (Doc. 1-1 at 1);

5. a Notice of Requestion/Request for Corrections by the Kern County Superior Court Clerk filed October 2, 2014 (id. at 2);

6. a Request for Entry of Default and Court Judgment by Plaintiff dated October 1, 2014 (id. at 3-4);

7. a Judicial Council Judgment form, JUD-100, with entries made in Plaintiff's handwriting, that is neither signed by a judge nor certified by a clerk (id. at 5-6);

3

8. a Memorandum of Costs After Judgment form, signed by Plaintiff and filed on June 26, 2013 (id. at 7); and

9. a Declaration by Plaintiff signed July 17, 2022 (id at 8-9).

The Defective Notice of Removal

As an initial matter, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) requires that the moving party's...