1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MANDY GINA LEIGH, Case No. 20-cv-04373-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING CASE TO 9 v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR COUNTY OF MARIN 10 MICHAEL GEARY WILSON,

11 Defendant.

12 13 On June 29, 2020, defendant Michael Geary Wilson removed this action from the Superior 14 Court of Marin County to this Court. Defendant’s notice of removal states that removal is based 15 upon federal question jurisdiction because, inter alia, this case is related to certain other federal 16 cases that Wilson has filed against Leigh and others in which he asserted his constitutional rights. 17 Wilson also filed an administrative motion to relate this case to the other federal cases. In an order 18 filed July 2, 2020, Judge Chesney of this Court deemed this case to be unrelated to the other cases: 19 Wilson v. Mount Diablo Unified Sch. Dist., C 19-3441 MMC; Wilson v. Wilson et al., C 20-1076 20 JD; Wilson v. City of Walnut Creek, C 20-2721 PJH; Wilson v. County of Contra Costa et al., C 20- 21 4160 WHA. 22 The Court has reviewed the notice of removal and the exhibits filed by Wilson in support of 23 the removal. The Court concludes that removal was improper because there is no basis for federal 24 jurisdiction. This case was filed on August 27, 2019, in Marin County Superior Court by Mandy 25 Leigh seeking a civil harassment restraining order against Wilson based upon state law. Dkt. No. 7 26 at p. 57. On October 4, 2019, the Superior Court issued a three-year restraining order against Wilson 27 protecting Leigh, her husband and law partner, and their two children. Id. at p. 194. The exhibits 1 seeking to hold Wilson in contempt for violating the restraining order, and that motion was noticed 2 || fora hearing in July 2020. Id. at p. 1. 3 The state court action does not involve any federal claims, and thus this Court lacks 4 jurisdiction. See generally

(b); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams,

, 392 5 (1987) (federal jurisdiction is governed by “well-pleaded complaint rule” which provides that 6 || federal jurisdiction exists only when federal question is presented on the face of a plaintiffs properly 7 || pleaded complaint). Wilson’s contention that this case is “related” to other federal actions and that 8 those actions provide a basis for jurisdiction over this lawsuit is both factually and legally incorrect. 9 Judge Chesney has determined that this action is not related to the other federal actions. Further, 10 || even if this case were deemed “related” to the other pending actions under the Northern District’s 11 Civil Local Rules, each case must have its own basis for federal jurisdiction. 12 Accordingly, because the record in this case demonstrates that removal was improper, the 13 Court sua sponte REMANDS this case to the Superior Court for the County of Marin. All pending 14 |! motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Gan. belie || Datea: July 6, 2020 SUSAN ILLSTON 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28