Bosco Credit, LLC v. Short
- Lin
- 3:25-cv-05489
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bosco Credit v. Short, Judge Lin ordered Short to explain why the removed eviction case should not return to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Wilton C. Short must respond to the court's jurisdictional order; the removed action brought by Bosco Credit, LLC may be returned to the California state court if the court later determines that federal jurisdiction is lacking.
What happened
Bosco Credit, LLC sued Wilton C. Short and others in California state court, and Short, representing himself, moved the case to federal court. He relied on a prior federal case that had been dismissed and argued that the eviction involved violations of federal civil rights.
The court said it did not appear that federal-question jurisdiction existed because the claims did not arise under federal law. It also said Short had not shown that he was denied, or could not enforce, federal civil rights in state court, as required for removal under the cited civil-rights removal law. Short did not claim diversity jurisdiction, and the court said another removal provision did not apply because he did not claim to be a federal officer or assisting one.
Judge Rita F. Lin ordered Short to file a written response by October 7, 2025, explaining why the case should not be sent back to the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa because federal subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking.
The detailed version
- Bosco Credit, LLC v. Short · No. 3:25-cv-05489
- Lin
- Sept. 10, 2025
Background
Wilton C. Short, who was representing himself, removed an action from the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa to the federal district court. The opinion identifies Bosco Credit, LLC as the plaintiff and Short and others as defendants. The underlying lawsuit concerns an eviction.
Short asserted federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, relying on a now-dismissed federal case, Case No. 24-cv-07908-RFL. He also asserted that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 because the eviction was being used to deprive him of federal civil rights, including due process and equal protection.
Jurisdictional analysis
Federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning they may hear only cases authorized by federal law. The court stated that it did not appear that § 1331 jurisdiction existed because the claims did not arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court also noted that Short's other federal lawsuit had been dismissed.
The court explained that removal under § 1443(1) requires a defendant to show that the defendant is denied, or cannot enforce, certain federal civil rights in state court. The court found that Short had not explained how he was denied or unable to enforce his federal civil rights in state court. The court therefore said it did not appear that he had made the showing required for removal under § 1443(1).
The court also noted that § 1443(2) did not apply because that provision is available only when the defendant is a state or federal officer, or a person assisting such an officer. Short did not claim to be a federal officer or to be assisting one. Finally, Short did not assert diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Order
Judge Rita F. Lin issued an order to show cause rather than a final remand order. The court ordered Short to file a written response by October 7, 2025, explaining why the case should not be remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa because subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.