(UD)(PS) Malik v. Powell
District Court, E.D. California
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Umer Malik, No. 2:20-cv-02542-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 James Powell, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Defendant James Powell, who appears pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action from 18 | Sacramento County Superior Court. See Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. Mr. Powell has also moved 19 | to proceed in forma pauperis. See Mot., ECF No. 2. The court has reviewed the complaint and 20 | notice of removal and has determined on its own motion that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 21 | This action is thus…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MottleySupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Hitachi Zosen Clearing, Inc. v. Tek-Matik, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
- Ludlow v. BinghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1799