The opinion of the court was delivered by: B. Lynn Winmill Chief Judge United States District Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Respondents Dan L. Pope d/b/a Dan Pope's Motion to Remand and Motion for Protection from Vexatious Litigant (Dkt. 6). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Motion.
On April 20, 2011, Petitioner Ralph Edward Heitman removed this action from state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. In March 2011, Heitman previously sought to remove the same state court in Case No. 4:11-cv-00080-BLW. The Court has ordered that Case No. 4:11-cv-00080-BLW be remanded. For the same reasons, the Court ordered that Case No. 4:11-cv-00080-BLW be remanded, the Court will order that this case be remanded.
To remove an action to federal court, there must be a legitimate basis
for the removal establishing original jurisdiction with the district
court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The "burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute
is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction." Prize Frize, Inc.
v. Matrix Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir.1999). Any doubt as to
the right of removal is resolved in favor of remand.
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992).
In this case, Heitman fails to make the necessary showing. Respondents Dan Pope, d/b/a, Dan Pope Trustee (collectively "Pope") initiated the state court litigation in Bear Lake County Case No. CV-2010-000206 to remove a $4,110,000 lien that Heitman had placed on Pope's real property in Bear Lake County. On its face, this claim does not appear to arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States as required for removal under 28 U.S.C. §1331. Nor does Heitman allege that complete diversity exists or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1332.
Instead, Heitman seems to argue that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction because the state court judge unfairly sided with Pope and/or Heitman seeks to test a bankruptcy court decision to which he was not a party. Neither of these constitutes a legitimate basis for removal jurisdiction.
Because no legitimate basis exists for removal jurisdiction, the case will be remanded to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2.Motions for Protection from Vexatious Litigant and for Attorney Fees
This Court has inherent power to "regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances."
DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989)). Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) vests this Court with the power to enjoin litigants with abusive and lengthy histories of abuse from future filings or to impose such other restrictions pre-filing as may be necessary to prevent such abuse. Id. The Court may also impose such other pre-filing restrictions as may be necessary to prevent such abuse. Id. A pre-filing order must be tailored to fit the vice that the court has encountered, and it may not prevent all of Plaintiff's lawsuits from being filed. De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148.
In Case No. 4:11-cv-00080-BLW, the Court reiterated the Pre-Filing Review Order it issued in Case No. 4:07-cv-00210-BLW. This Order directed the Clerk of the Court to reject any filing of action, pleading, or letters in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho involving claims that had previously been found to lack merit without first obtaining leave of the Chief Judge of the Court. Those claims previously found to lack merit include: "(1) Any action involving property in the alleged homeowners development of Bear Lake West Home Owners Association, . . . or any persons associated with such corporation, . . . (2) Any action described as analogous to federal admiralty law or maritime law; and (3) Any action bearing any description ...