1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CAPITAL ONE N.A., No. 2:25-cv-2373 DJC AC PS 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER and 13 KEVIN J. REED, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 On August 20, 2025, the pro se defendant removed this case from Solano County Superior 18 Court. ECF No. 1. Defendant has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. He filed the 19 required affidavit, and the motion is accordingly GRANTED. However, it is apparent from the 20 removal documents that this case was improperly removed to federal court and that this court 21 lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is recommended that this case be REMANDED back to the 22 Solano County Superior Court. Further, it is recommended that defendant’s two motions to 23 dismiss (ECF No. 4 and 7) be DENIED as MOOT. 24 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 25 Am.,

(1994). In

and 1332(a), “Congress granted federal 26 courts jurisdiction over two general types of cases: cases that “aris[e] under” federal law, § 1331, 27 and cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000 and there is diversity of 28 citizenship among the parties, § 1332(a). These jurisdictional grants are known as “federal- 1 question jurisdiction” and “diversity jurisdiction,” respectively. Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. 2 Jackson,

(2019). A case “arises under” federal law for jurisdictional purposes 3 either where federal law creates the cause of action or “where the vindication of a right under 4 state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.” Republican Party of Guam v. 5 Gutierrez,

, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction 6 Laborers Vacation Trust,

, 8–9 (1983)). “[T]he presence or absence of federal-question 7 jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal 8 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly 9 pleaded complaint.”

at 1089 (quoting Rivet v. Regions Bank,

(1998)). 10 The notice of removal states that the case is removed pursuant to “28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 11 1443, 1331, and 1343, which authorize the removal of state proceedings to this Court where 12 constitutional rights, treaty protections, and civil rights are at issue.” ECF No. 1 at 2. The 13 attached complaint, however, indicates that plaintiff is suing defendant to recover an unpaid loan 14 and is seeking $7,544.32 in damages. ECF No. 1 at 11-14. There is no federal cause of action 15 identified in the complaint, and accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff 16 seeks less than $75,000.00, and accordingly, there can be no diversity jurisdiction. 17 The statutes plaintiff cites do not provide a basis for jurisdiction:

18 codifies removal jurisdiction, § 1443 codifies removal of civil rights cases, § 1331 codifies 19 federal question jurisdiction, and § 1343 codifies original jurisdiction for civil rights and elective 20 franchise. None of these statutes alter the fact that federal jurisdiction is based on the claims 21 presented in the complaint, not on a defendant’s potential defenses or legal arguments in response 22 to the complaint.1 Defendant has failed to demonstrate any basis for this court’s jurisdiction, and 23 1 Though defendant does not expressly state that he is a “sovereign citizen,” the undersigned 24 notes that his allegations, explanations, and exhibits include concepts and rhetoric commonly associated with sovereign citizen ideology. Legal theories based on sovereign citizen ideology 25 have been rejected by countless federal courts. See, e.g., United States v. Ward,

, 26

at *2 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that contentions based on sovereign citizen arguments are “frivolous” and that “courts ordinarily reject similar contentions without 27 extended argument”) (collecting cases); United States v. Benabe,

, 761–67 (7th Cir. 2011) (discussing sovereign citizen arguments as “frivolous, irrational, or unintelligible,” having 28 (continued…) 1 | the undersigned finds none. 2 It is ORDRED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is 3 | GRANTED. 4 It is RECOMMENDED that defendant’s motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 4 and 7) be 5 || DENIED as moot and that this case be REMANDED to Solano County Superior Court and 6 || closed. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 9 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a 11 || document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 12 || Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 13 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 14 | v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 15 | DATED: August 28, 2025 ~ 16 Chthion— Chore ALLISON CLAIRE 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 no validity in country’s legal system and recommending that they be “rejected summarily, 27 || however they are presented” and regardless of the individual’s claimed status of descent, “be it as a “sovereign citizen,’ a ‘secured-party creditor,’ or a ‘flesh-and-blood human being’ ”) (collecting 28 || cases).