(HC) Anderson v. State of California

Opinion

DION ANDERSON, and KONANYAH No. 2:23-cv-0522 KJN P BN YAHLAZAR, Plaintiff, v. RECOMMENDATIONS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff Anderson is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On March 17, 2023, plaintiff filed a “Request and Notice for Removal to the Eastern District,” under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. (ECF No. 1.) However, plaintiff’s removal is improper. A plaintiff cannot remove his own action to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Am. Int’l Underwriters (Philippines), Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 1253, 1260 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The right to remove a state court case to federal court is clearly limited to defendants.”) Because an action may only be removed to federal court by a defendant, plaintiff’s removal petition should be remanded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Okot v. Callahan, 788 F.2d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 1986). In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and //// ] Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs action be remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: March 27, 2023 Aectl Aharon /ande0522.56 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE