Amit Tewari v. Alicia Casey

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01355
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 AMIT TEWARI, 7 Case No. 2:25-cv-01355-NJK Plaintiff, 8 v. [Docket No. 1] 9 ALICIA CASEY, 10 Defendant. 11 12 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Defendant is proceeding in this action pro se and has 13 requested authority pursuant to § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. See Docket No. 1. Defendant 14 also filed a notice of removal. Docket No. 1-1. 15 I. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AUTHORITY 16 The Court first evaluates its authority to address the matter. The authority of the 17 undersigned magistrate judge is derived from 28 U.S.C. § 636, which provides magistrate judges 18 with the authority to “order the entry of judgment in the case,” “[u]pon the consent of the parties.” 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); see also Local Rule IB 2-1. “[J]urisdiction under § 636(c)(1) gives the 20 magistrate judge’s ruling ‘the same effect as if it had been made by a district judge.’” Washington 21 v. Kijakazi, 72 F.4th 1029, 1035 (9th Cir. 2023) (citing Robert Ito Farm, Inc. v. County of Maui, 22 842 F.3d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 2016)). 23 This case was directly referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to the District 24 of Nevada’s General Order 2023-11. Docket No. 3. Both parties had the option to decline the 25 undersigned magistrate judge overseeing this case, see Docket Nos. 3, 5, and neither party 26 exercised that option. See Docket. Therefore, the parties made a “knowing and voluntary decision 27 to proceed before the Magistrate Judge.” Docket No. 5. 28 1 II. STANDARDS 2 Cases may be removed from state court to federal court based on the existence of federal 3 subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject 4 matter jurisdiction over the dispute before it, an issue it may raise at any time during the 5 proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” 6 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377(1994), and there is a strong 7 presumption against removal jurisdiction, Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d. 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 “[F]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 9 instance.” Id. Removing defendants bear the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Id. 10 “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary 11 affirmatively appears.” Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 12 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). 13 A. Federal Question Jurisdiction 14 “Removal based on federal-question jurisdiction is reviewed under the longstanding well- 15 pleaded complaint rule.” Hansen v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018). The 16 “well-pleaded complaint rule provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question 17 is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” California ex rel. v. Locyer 18 v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted). The federal issue 19 “must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or by the petition for 20 removal.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Moreover, defenses and counterclaims cannot be used 21 to establish federal question jurisdiction. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). 22 Here, there is no apparent federal question, as Defendant seeks to remove her eviction. 23 Docket No. 1-1 at 5. Defendant submits that federal question jurisdiction exists because “[t]he 24 Complaint seeks damages from alleged ‘racist and discriminatory’ actions ascribed to the 25 defendants,” “the claim makes allegations regarding the deprivation of equal rights,” and “[t]he 26 Complaint alleges violations of the Far Housing Act.” Id. at 2-3. Defendant’s defense alleging 27 violations of federal law cannot be used as a basis for federal question jurisdiction. 28 1/10. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 3 The Court DENIES Defendant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. The 4] Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to close this case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED 6 Dated: October 17, 2025

Nancy J. Koppe “~~ 9 United Statés.M agistrate Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28