(HC) Anderson v. State of California, No. 2:2023cv00522 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge John A. Mendez for Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 5/12/2023 ADOPTING 3 Findings and Recommendations in full and REMANDING CASE to Sacramento County Superior Court. Certified copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Perdue, C.)

Download PDF
(HC) Anderson v. State of California Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 DION ANDERSON, and KONANYAH BN YAHLAZAR, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 No. 2:23-cv-0522 WBS KJN P ORDER v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On March 17, 2023, plaintiff filed a 19 “Request and Notice for Removal to the Eastern District,” under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Plaintiff 20 sought removal of his petition for writ of mandate filed in state court. The matter was referred to 21 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On March 28, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 23 which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 24 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On May 1, 2023, plaintiff 25 filed a document styled, “Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 26 Recommendations.” However, plaintiff does not object, but rather concedes that only defendants 27 have a right to remove an action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, and therefore “concedes 28 to remand back to the Sacramento Superior Court for further proceedings.” (ECF No. 6.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 2 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 3 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having 4 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 5 and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 28, 2023, are ADOPTED in full; and 8 2. Plaintiff’s action is REMANDED to the Sacramento County Superior Court. 9 10 Dated: May 12, 2023 11 /s/ John A. Mendez for THE HONORABLE WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 /ande0522.800 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.