State of Ohio/City of Oregon v. DeAnde L. Belmon

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 STATE OF OHIO, et al., 5 Case No. 2:22-cv-00897-RFB-VCF

6 Plaintiffs, Report and Recommendation to Remand vs. 7 And DEANDE L. BELMON, 8 in his capacity as Jus Sanguinis English Heir from Order The Kingdom of England, Great Britain 9 Archbishop of The Third Temple English Church APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED 10 Of England and in his individual capacity,1 IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 1); PETITION FOR REMOVAL (ECF NO. 1-2) Defendant. 11 12 13 Pro se party DeAnde L. Belmon apparently has some traffic citations pending against him in the 14 “Oregon Municipal Court” which is in a town called Oregon in the State of Ohio.2 See ECF No. 1-1 at 4. 15 Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed IFP. ECF No. 1. I sua sponte determine that removal is 16 improper. ECF No. 1-1. I recommend that this action be remanded. I deny the application to proceed in 17 forma pauperis as moot. ECF No. 1. 18 DISCUSSION 19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4), a district court shall examine a removal petition promptly. 20 “If it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not 21 be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand.” Id. A defendant seeking to remove an 22 action from state court must file a notice of removal with the federal court to which removal is sought. 23 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a). “[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent 24

25 1 This is Belmon’s case caption. 2 I also note that Belmon has a similar case pending in this Court. See 2:22-cv-00891-RFB-BNW, State of Ohio/City of Oregon v. Belmon. 1 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) 2 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). 3 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction only over 4 matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; e.g., Kokkonen v. 5 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). Removal 6 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1441 applies to the removal of civil cases. 7 I reviewed the notice of removal and the attached citations to see if Belmont can show that this 8 court has jurisdiction under the liberal pleading standard. The state court action(s) appear to all pertain 9 to misdemeanor criminal traffic citations in Ohio. ECF No. 1-2 at 2. Plaintiff filed a notice of removal to 10 “remove” these “cases” to this Court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, federal law, and the “Treaty of 11 Paris.” Id. at 2. Belmon lists a Las Vegas address “c/o” as his address on this docket, but on the citations 12 his address is listed as an Ohio address. Id. at 4. 13 Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1441 applies to the removal of civil cases. Belmont’s Ohio 14 traffic ticket proceedings appear to be misdemeanor criminal cases which cannot be removed to this 15 Court. There are no federal claims in the underlying cases so federal question jurisdiction does not exist. 16 Complete diversity also does not exist since plaintiff lives in Ohio and using a “care of” Nevada address 17 does not create diversity. The case caption at the top of the removal notice is also directed to the 18 Northern District of Ohio, not Nevada. Plaintiff’s citation to the Treaty of Paris is non-sensical, 19 especially in the context of his removal notice, which is full of gibberish about being an English heir to 20 King Clifford Jefferson. Even under the liberal pleading standard, Belmon has failed to establish a basis 21 for removal. Based on the frivolous nature of Belmon’s attempt to remove his Ohio traffic citation 22 proceedings to this Court, I recommend that this case be remanded. I deny plaintiff’s application to 23 proceed informa pauperis as moot. 24 ACCORDINGLY, 25 2 1 IT RECOMMEND that that this action be REMANDED. 2 I ORDER that Belmon’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED AS 3 || MOOT. 4 NOTICE 5 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 6 || recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 7 || of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 8 || may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 9 || time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file 10 || objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues 11 || waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the 12 || District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. 13 || Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file 14 || written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of 15 || service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by 16 |} counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 17 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED and ORDERED. 18 9 DATED this 24th day of June 2022. CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25