(PS) State of California v. Ficklin ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:20-cv-01777-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. ECF No. 2 14 MIKE FICKLIN, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendant. THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED 16 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS 17 ECF No. 1 18 Defendant Mike Ficklin seeks removal of his family law matter from Butte County, 19 California Superior Court to federal court. See ECF No. 1. This matter is before the court for 20 screening. The state court proceeding is closed; thus, it cannot be removed to federal court.1 I 21 will recommend that this case be dismissed. I will also grant plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 22 forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 23 A notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of service of the state court pleadings 24 and joined by all defendants in the proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Here, defendant’s case in 25 26 1 The court takes judicial notice of the case information in Baca v. Ficklin, No. 27 17FL01814, available at https://www.buttecourt.ca.gov/CaseInformation/ (follow “Case Information” hyperlink; then “Smart Search” hyperlink and enter “17FL01814” into the search 28 field). 1 | superior court began on September 12, 2017, with a request for a domestic violence restraining 2 | order against minor children. Defendant filed his notice of removal in this court three years later 3 | on September 3, 2020. Thus, defendant’s notice is untimely.” Dismissal is appropriate here 4 | because the state action has been closed, rendering remand unavailable. 5 Order 6 Defendant Mike Ficklin’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is 7 | granted. 8 Findings and Recommendations 9 I recommend that the court dismiss this case and that all pending motions be denied as 10 | moot. I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 11 | § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 12 | Eastern District of California. Within 14 days of the service of the findings and 13 | recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and recommendations 14 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document should be captioned “Objections to 15 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings 16 | and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( q Sty — Dated: _ February 10, 2021 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 > It also appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case because defendant is challenging state laws and does not allege diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 28 | 1446; Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 695 (1992).