1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 M'CHARLOTTE CHEATHAM, Case No. 22-cv-04354-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. 11

12 13 Before the Court is defendant United States of America's ("United States") Motion 14 to Dismiss, filed August 4, 2022. Plaintiff M'Charlotte Cheatham ("Cheatham") has filed a 15 response, to which the United States has replied. Having read and considered the 16 parties' respective written submissions, the Court deems the matter suitable for 17 determination thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for September 16, 2022, and 18 rules as follows. 19 In her complaint, initially filed in state court, Cheatham, who proceeds pro se, 20 seeks monetary relief of over $10,000 from the government, for the asserted reason that 21 she has been injured by reason of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's allegedly having 22 not taken action on a complaint she made about her brother. The United States removed 23 the action to federal district court pursuant to

, which allows the United 24 State to remove from "State court" an action against "the United States or any agency 25 thereof." See

(a), 1442(a)(1). 26 In seeking dismissal, the United States relies on the derivative jurisdiction doctrine, 27 under which, where a case is removed pursuant to § 1442, the federal district court "must 1 Grand Jury,

, 555 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining, "[i]f the state court lacks 2 || jurisdiction over the subject-matter . . ., the federal court acquires none") (internal 3 || quotation and citation omitted). 4 Here, Cheatham, as noted, seeks monetary relief based on her allegation that she 5 || has been injured by the FBI's failure to investigate a complaint she made against her 6 || brother. As the United States points out, under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 7 || “district courts" have "exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United 8 || States, for money damages... for injury or loss of property . . . caused by the negligent 9 || or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the 10 || scope or his office or employment." See

(b) (emphasis added). 11 Consequently, the state court in which Cheatham filed her complaint lacked jurisdiction to g 12 || consider it, and, in turn, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. See Rodriguez v. s 13 || United States,

, 536 (9th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of FTCA 14 || claim alleged against federal agency, where action had been removed by United States 2 15 || from state court, as "the state court lacked jurisdiction over [the plaintiff's] claim"; citing a 16 || "long-standing derivative jurisdiction doctrine"). g 17 Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED. S 18 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: September 9, 2022 tare, Cha INE M. CHESNEY 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 ' In light of this ruling, the Court does not address herein the additional arguments 2g || raised by the United States.