eee eee Oe ee se ee Oo Ee ee ee ae er doe a! el oe “Vy a LE oe

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

CANDICE KATHARINE CAMPBELL, No. 4:25-cv-00135-RGE-HCA Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PETITION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BANK, REFERENCE TO BANKRUPTCY COURT Defendant.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Candice Katharine Campbell’s pro se Petition for Withdrawal from Automatic Referral and Notice of Removal. Pl.’s Pet. for Withdrawal of Reference, ECF No. 1. Construing Campbell’s pro se petition liberally, the Court sets forth the relevant facts as it understands them. See Haines v. Kerner,

(1972) (per curiam). On March 12, 2025, Campbell filed a voluntary Chapter 7 Petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Iowa. Pet., in the Matter of Candice Katharine Campbell, No. 25-00358-lmj7 (Bankr. $.D. lowa March 12, 2025), ECF No. 1. In her bankruptcy petition, Campbell sought financial relief and protection from Defendant Washington State Bank, among other creditors. 7d. at 11. This appears to be Campbell’s third bankruptcy case in the Southern District of Iowa. Clerk’s Evidence of All Repeat Filings, No. 25-00358-Imj7, ECF No. 7 (noting previous Chapter 7 filings in 2003 and 2011). On April 10, 2025, Campbell filed a motion for withdrawal of reference in her bankruptcy proceeding. Pet’r’s Mot. Withdrawal of Reference, No. 25-00358-lmj7, ECF No. 10. The Clerk of Bankruptcy Court transmitted the motion to this Court. Docket Text Order, No. 25- 00358-Ilmj7, ECF No. 11. Campbell “seeks relief from the automatic referral to the Bankruptcy Court,” arguing

ESE NE NANI EN et Nee DN A PU eet UP MY eI

“certain agreements entered into by [Campbell] and Washington State Bank . . . under the Borrower-in-Custody (BIC) Program” are unconstitutional. ECF No. 1 at 9. She states she “aims to ensure that these core constitutional issues are addressed before a constitutionally empowered tribunal.” Ja. . Pursuant to

(d), the Court may withdraw any case automatically referred to the bankruptcy court “for cause shown.”

(d). The Court “shall. .. withdraw a proceeding if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.” Jd. Campbell’s nineteen-page petition consists of incomprehensible legalese and fails to show cause for withdrawal at this juncture of the proceedings. See generally ECF No. 1 at 6-24. The Court also finds that “that resolution of the proceeding [does not] require[] consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.” 28 U.S.C, § 157(d). Campbell’s petition is denied. This matter is referred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Iowa for further proceedings. Should the Bankruptcy Court ultimately find resolution of the petition requires consideration of issues beyond its jurisdiction, the Bankruptcy Court may, at that time, transfer the matter to this Court. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Candice Katharine Campbell’s Petition for Withdrawal of the Reference, ECF No. 1, is DENTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Pa. Dated this 25th day of April, 2025. (fle Lees Clay BECCA G: ERINGER UNITED States DistRIcT JUDGE