Steven Quinn Singleton v. Valley Strong Credit Union

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 18, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-02021
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 STEVEN QUINN SINGLETON, Case No. 1:26-cv-02021-JLT-SAB

12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING REMAND AND 13 v. DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT 14 VALLEY STRONG CREDIT UNION, (ECF Nos. 1, 2) 15 Defendant.

16 On March 13, 2026, Plaintiff Steven Quinn Singleton, who is proceeding pro se, removed 17 this action and applied to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Because the removal 18 statute does not authorize such a removal, the Court will issue findings and recommendations, 19 recommending that this matter be remanded. 20 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 21 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular 22 case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the 23 Colville Rsrv., 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). 24 Under certain circumstances, a defendant may remove a state court case to federal court: 25 Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any 26 civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by 27 the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such 1 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (emphasis added). Significantly, “[n]o language in Section 1441 provides a 2 textual basis for removal by a plaintiff.” Hopkins v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. C- 3 1300869 DMR, 2013 WL 1800049, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013). “Where doubt regarding 4 the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.” Matheson v. Progressive 5 Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). 6 In Plaintiff’s latest gambit, he has filed numerous cases in state court and then has 7 removed them to the Eastern District of California. See, e.g., Singleton v. Jordan, No. 1:26-cv- 8 02019-EPG, ECF No. 1, Notice of Removal (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2026); Singleton v. Superior 9 Court of California, Fresno County, No. 1:26-cv-02096-JLT-SAB, ECF No. 1, Notice of 10 Removal (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2026); Singleton v. Thompson, No. 1:26-cv-02095-KES-HBK, 11 ECF No. 1, Notice of Removal (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2026); Singleton v. Superior Court of 12 California, Fresno County, No. 1:26-cv-02097-KES-SKO, ECF No. 1, Notice of Removal (E.D. 13 Cal. Mar. 16, 2026); Singleton v. Winter, No. 1:26-cv-02099-JLT-FRS, ECF No. 1, Notice of 14 Removal (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2026).1 15 However, the removal statute authorizes only a civil defendant or defendants to remove a 16 state court action to federal court.2 Improperly removed actions must be remanded to state court. 17 See Okot v. Callahan, 788 F.2d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 1986). 18 Because Plaintiff’s removal is procedurally improper, and there does not appear to be any 19 way this could be corrected, the Court is compelled from the outset to recommend remand of this 20 action without wasting further judicial resources. 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / /

25 1 Plaintiff has also concurrently flooded the Court with other cases. See, e.g., Singleton v. Department of State, No. 1:26-cv-02062-JLT-SKO, ECF No. 1, Complaint (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2026); Singleton v. Environmental Protection 26 Agency, No. 1:26-cv-02061-JLT-FRS, ECF No. 1, Complaint (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2026); Singleton v. Department of Agriculture, No. 1:26-cv-2060-JLT-EPG, ECF No. 1, Complaint (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2026). 27 2 The Court advises Plaintiff that the civil removal statute uses the term “defendant” as a civil defendant, not a 1 Il. 2 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be remanded to the Magistrate Court of 4 | Fulton County, Georgia. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's application to 5 | proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED as MOOT. 6 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 7 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 8 | (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 9 | written objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages in length, including exhibits. The 10 | document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 11 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 12 | may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th 13 | Cir. 2014), citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 16 | Dated: _ March 18, 2026 : STANLEY A. BOONE 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28