UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Overlook at Blue Ravine LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00633-KJM-KJN

Plaintiff, ORDER v. Peter Dupuis, 1S Defendant.

Defendant Peter Dupuis, proceeding pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action from | the Sacramento County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. Dupuis also filed a | motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Mot., ECF No. 2. For the reasons below, the court | remands the matter to state court and denies the motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.

When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” is | iitially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). | There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question | jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Under § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions | arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under | the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit “arises under” federal law “only when the | plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].”

| Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Federal question jurisdiction | cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, | 556 USS. 49, 60 (2009).

Depuis’s notice of removal asserts the court has federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 | “because Defendant’s Demurrer, a pleading depend on the determination of Defendant’s rights | and Plaintiffs duties under federal law.” Notice of Removal § 10. However, Depuis’s answer or | counterclaim cannot serve as a basis for federal question jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60. | Additionally, plaintiff's complaint filed in state court asserts only a claim for unlawful detainer, | which is a matter of state law. See id. § 7; see also State Ct. Compl., Notice of Removal Ex. A. | Because plaintiffs complaint does not show that it is based upon federal law, the court does not | have federal question jurisdiction over the action. See Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, | 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[Plaintiff] may generally avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading solely | state-law claims.”). Accordingly, the case must be remanded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (Tf at | any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, | the case shall be remanded.”).

Thus, the court remands this matter to the Sacramento County Superior Court. | Depuis’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot.

This order resolves ECF No. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 10, 2023. l ti / ¢ is 23 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE