1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 12 JEFF MACY, No. 5:25-cv-00231-RGK-BFM 13 Plaintiff, v. ORDER REMANDING CASE 14 TO STATE COURT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 The Complaint in this action alleges that Defendant San Bernardino 18 County1 violated civil rights laws and state law. (ECF 1-1 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges 19 claims for (1) Extortion, (2) Restricting Use of the Land, (3) Municipal and 20 Supervisory Liability, and (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. (ECF 21 1-1.) The Complaint was originally filed in the San Bernardino County Superior 22 Court. On January 28, 2025, Defendant removed the matter to this Court. (ECF 23 1.) This Court sua sponte remands this action to the San Bernardino County 24 Superior Court for lack of jurisdiction. 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff named as Defendant the San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department. Defense counsel avers that the entity is properly sued as 28 San Bernardino County. (ECF 1 at 1.) 1 2 which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” unless 3 otherwise expressly provided by Congress.

(a); Dennis v. Hart, 4

(9th Cir. 2013). The removing defendant “must 5 demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal courts.” 6 Syngenta Crop Prot., 537 U.S. at 33. Failure to do so requires that the case be 7 remanded, as “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived.” Kelton Arms 8 Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003) 9 (citation omitted). A federal court may raise a lack of federal jurisdiction sua 10 sponte. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co.,

, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988). 11 Here, Plaintiff has not stated a substantial federal question. He alleges, 12 without any elaboration, that a change of address for his vacant property, a 13 change for which the Land Use Department “extorted” a fee from him, somehow 14 violated his religious rights. He also seems to contend, without elaboration, that 15 the Land Use Department is restricting the use of his “religious, nonprofit 16 private property MacyLand,” and refusing to remove all restrictions concerning 17 the use of “religious, nonprofit private property MacyLand.” (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 7, 16, 18 17.) His allegations lack substance and provide no foundation for his claim that 19 the Land Use Department had knowledge of its deficient policies, practices, and 20 customs as alleged with respect to the address change. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 29.) Thus, 21 Plaintiff has not stated a substantial federal question for purposes of 22 jurisdiction in this Court. See Tr. v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., No. 2:16-cv-1237- 23 ODW-SS,

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016) (“A federal claim 24 which is so insubstantial as to be patently without merit cannot serve as the 25 basis for federal jurisdiction.”) 26 Because there is no non-frivolous federal claim stated, the Court lacks 27 jurisdiction over the case. 28 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be, and hereby is, 2 || REMANDED to the San Bernardino County Superior Court of California, for 3 || lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2/11/2025 “O Rerrgnea 5 || DATED: R. GARY KLAUSNER 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28