California Department of Motor Vehicles v. Guancione

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 14, 2022
• Docket: 5:22-cv-04894
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF Case No. 5:22-cv-04894-EJD MOTOR VEHICLES, 9 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY Plaintiff, ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 10 REMANDED v. 11 ROSALIE GUANCIONE, 12 Defendant.

13 14 On August 26, 2022, pro se Defendant Rosalie Guancione removed this proceeding from 15 the California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) Administrative Court pursuant to 28 16 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1443, crossclaiming for conspiracy to deprive her right to travel under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1985 and alleging violations of her First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth 18 Amendment rights. See Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1. Defendant subsequently moved to 19 proceed in forma pauperis, stay proceedings, enter default, and to dismiss the DMV’s complaint. 20 See Dkt. Nos. 3, 5, 15, 17. 21 Section 1441(a) authorizes removal of actions that are brought in a state court of which a 22 district court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A “state court” does not include 23 removal of proceedings from an administrative agency even if it conducts “court-like 24 proceedings.” Oregon Bureau of Lab. & Indus. ex rel. Richardson v. U.S. W. Commc’ns, Inc., 25 288 F.3d 414, 417, 419 (9th Cir. 2002) (remanding proceedings that were removed from the 26 Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries because “[t]he statute authorizes removal only if the action 27 is pending in a state court.”). Ms. Guancione removed her DMV file from a state administrative 1 agency, the California Department of Motor Vehicles, rather than a state court. 2 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 3 orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 4 (1962). Ms. Guancione is directed to file a written response to this order by Friday, October 21, 5 || 2022 and show cause why this action should not be remanded for lack of removal jurisdiction. If 6 Plaintiff fails to file a written response by the above deadline, the Clerk of Court will be directed 7 to remand the proceeding to the California Department of Motor Vehicles Administrative Court 8 and close the file. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 14, 2022

(12 EDWARD J. DAVILA 13 United States District Judge

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:22-cv-04894-EJD OSC WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED