Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Gloria Rivas filed an unlawful detainer action against Sky Boles in Los Angeles County Superior Court on September 6, 2026. Boles, proceeding pro se, removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 29, 2026, and at the same time filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. In his notice of removal, Boles asserted that the court had federal question jurisdiction, citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 3601, and 12101 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1443, and he argued that Rivas's conduct had violated his civil rights as protected by federal law.
Because the court saw a possible jurisdictional defect, on October 9, 2026, it ordered Boles to show cause in writing, no later than October 23, 2026, why the case should not be remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Boles did not respond to that order. On October 26, 2026, the court issued its order remanding the case.
The two-page civil minutes order was issued in chambers on October 26, 2026, by the Honorable Christina A. Snyder, with no attorneys present for either party.
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. It explained that unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state court, citing Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Suarez and Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Leonardo, and that a complaint asserting only unlawful detainer states a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Because the only claim Rivas asserted against Boles was unlawful detainer, the federal statutes cited in the removal papers did not supply a federal claim on which removal jurisdiction could rest.
The court also rejected Boles's attempt to establish jurisdiction through his own allegations. Citing McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 2007), it explained that a defendant's attempt at creating federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a notice of removal must fail, and that a defendant cannot create federal jurisdiction by adding claims or asserting defenses. Boles's civil rights allegations therefore could not transform Rivas's state-law unlawful detainer complaint into a removable federal case.
After noting that Boles had failed to respond to the order to show cause, the court ordered that the case be remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The order resolved only the jurisdictional question: it did not decide the merits of the underlying possession dispute or of Boles's civil rights allegations, and it did not address the in forma pauperis request beyond noting that Boles had filed one.
Key Takeaways
- An unlawful detainer complaint that asserts only a state-law claim does not become removable merely because the defendant invokes federal civil rights statutes in the notice of removal.
- Under McAtee, a removing defendant cannot manufacture federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or asserting defenses; the plaintiff's complaint controls the jurisdictional analysis.
- The court gave Boles a written order to show cause with an October 23, 2026 deadline to justify federal jurisdiction, and he filed no response by that deadline.
- On October 26, 2026, the court remanded the action to Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The remand was procedural only; the order did not adjudicate the merits of the possession dispute or the defendant's civil rights allegations.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the distinction between a plaintiff's claims, which control the removal jurisdictional analysis, and a defendant's asserted federal rights or defenses, which do not. It also shows a district court addressing an apparent jurisdictional defect at the threshold, after giving the removing party a written opportunity to respond, before allowing a removed state housing dispute to proceed in federal court.
For litigants removing California unlawful detainer cases, the decision underscores that citations to federal civil rights laws are not enough when the complaint itself contains only an unlawful detainer claim. The immediate consequence was procedural: the Los Angeles County Superior Court, rather than the federal court, will handle the action.