(HC) Anderson v. State of California

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DION ANDERSON, and KONANYAH No. 2:23-cv-0522 KJN P BN YAHLAZAR, Plaintiff, 13 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.

18 Plaintiff Anderson is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On March 17, 2023, plaintiff filed a “Request and Notice for Removal to the Eastern District,” under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. (ECF No. 1.) However, plaintiff’s removal is improper. A plaintiff cannot remove his own action to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Am. Int’l Underwriters (Philippines), Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 1253, 1260 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The right to remove a state court case to federal court is clearly limited to defendants.”) Because an action may only be removed to federal court by a defendant, plaintiff’s removal petition should be remanded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Okot v. Callahan, 788 F.2d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 1986).

26 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and //// ] Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs action be remanded to the || Sacramento County Superior Court.

3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District || Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

10 | Dated: March 27, 2023 Aectl Aharon 12 KENDALL J.NE /ande0522.56 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE