Campos v. Campos

[[COURTLISTENER_SUBOPINION {"id":"10804396","type":"100trialcourt","part":"opinion","author":null,"source_field":"html_with_citations"}]]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           
               DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                             

RICHARD CAMPOS,                                                           

Plaintiff,                                                           

     v.                                                              
                               CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-10167-MPK         

CINDY CAMPOS,                                                             

Defendant.                                                           


 ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,             
          ORDER TO REASSIGN TO A DISTRICT JUDGE,                     
      AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR REMAND                       

                      January 24, 2025                               

KELLEY, U.S.M.J.                                                          

Cindy Campos (“Campos”), who is representing herself in this matter, has filed a Notice 
of Removal, seeking to remove Richard Campos v. Cindy Campos, 2525RO00002 from the 
Barnstable District Court to this Federal District Court.  ECF No. 1.  Campos has also filed a 
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.  ECF No. 2.                
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion to proceed in forma 
pauperis, order that this action be reassigned to a District Judge, and recommend to the District 
Judge that this action be remanded.                                       
I.   Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis                        
Upon review of Campos’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court 
concludes that Campos has adequately shown that she is unable to pay the $405 removal fee.  
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.                                       
II.  Order to Reassign to a District Judge                                
Pursuant to General Orders (10-1) and (09-3), a case may be randomly assigned, at the 
time of filing, to a Magistrate Judge.  The parties are required to inform the Court within 30 days 
the last party is served whether they consent or refuse to consent to the final jurisdiction of a 

Magistrate Judge.  Because the parties have not consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate 
Judge and it appears that the case is subject to remand, the Clerk of Court shall reassign this case 
to a District Judge.                                                      
III.  Recommendation for Remand                                           
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.  They cannot act in the absence of 
subject matter jurisdiction, and they have a sua sponte duty to confirm the existence of 
jurisdiction in the face of apparent jurisdictional defects.”  United States v. Univ. of Mass., 
Worcester,
812 F.3d 35, 44
(1st Cir. 2016).  “Because removal jurisdiction raises serious 
federalism concerns, [federal courts] construe removal statutes strictly and against removal.”  
Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co.,
35 F.4th 44
, 52 (1st Cir. 2022) (emphases in original).  

“So if federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a federal court must remand to state court.”
Id.
Federal law provides for the removal of a civil action “brought in a State court of which 
the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.”
28 U.S.C. § 1441
(a) (emphasis 
added).  In other words, a state court case removed under
28 U.S.C. § 1441
(a) must meet the 
same jurisdictional requirements applicable to cases that originate in a federal district court. 
A federal district court has original jurisdiction over all civil actions “arising under” 
federal law.
28 U.S.C. § 1331
(“§ 1331”).1  Setting aside narrow exceptions not relevant here, 


1 Although not relevant to this action, the Court notes that a federal district court also has original 
jurisdiction over civil actions between residents of different states if the amount in controversy 
exceeds $75,000.  See
28 U.S.C. § 1332
.                                   
                           2                                         
for purposes of § 1331, a civil action arises under federal law “only when the plaintiff’s 
statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.”  
Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson,
539 U.S. 1, 6
(2003) (quoting Louisville & Nashville R.R. 
Co. v. Mottley,
211 U.S. 149, 152
(1908)).  “It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some 

anticipated defense to his cause of action and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some 
provision of the Constitution of the United States.”
Id.
Rather, “a right or immunity created by 
the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the 
plaintiff's cause of action.”  Templeton Bd. of Sewer Comm’rs v. Amer. Tissue Mills of Mass., 
Inc.,
352 F.3d 33, 37
(1st Cir. 2003).                                    
Although Campos asserts that this case “presents a federal question and removal is 
appropriate under
28 U.S.C. § 1441
(a),” ECF No. 1 at 1, this action does not arise under federal 
law.  Rather, the plaintiff’s action is one under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 258E for an 
abuse prevention order.  ECF No. 1-1.                                     
Because this action is not one over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court 

lacks removal jurisdiction.  This Court therefore recommends to the District Judge that this 
action be REMANDED to the Barnstable District Court.                      








                           3                                         
III.  Conclusion                                                          
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby:                  
1.   GRANTS the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis;       
2.   ORDERS that this case be reassigned to a District Judge; and    

3.   RECOMMENDS to the District Judge that this action be REMANDED to the 
Barnstable District Court.2                                               

SO ORDERED.                                                               
                               /s/ M. Page Kelley                    
                              M. Page Kelley                         
                              United States Magistrate Judge         









2 The Parties are hereby advised that pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 
72(b)(2), they are entitled to object to the Court’s Report and Recommendation by filing a 
specific written objection with the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of service of this 
Report and Recommendation.  Such written objections must specifically identify the portion of 
the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made and the basis for those 
objections.  The Parties are further advised that the First Circuit has repeatedly indicated that 
failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) shall preclude further appellate review.  See, e.g., M. 
v. Falmouth Sch. Dep’t,
847 F.3d 19, 26
(1st Cir. 2017); Keating v. Sec’y of Health & Human 
Servs.,
848 F.2d 271, 275
(1st Cir. 1988).                                
                           4