ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATON OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE COUSINS AND REMANDING ACTION TO THE SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR COURT

BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.

On August 30, 2016, Defendant William Cutlip filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Nathanel M. Cousins remanding this unlawful detainer action and denying Defendant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See ECF 9, 15. The Court has reviewed and thoroughly considered Judge Cousins' R&R and the arguments in Cutlip's objection. Finding the R&R correct, well-reasoned, and thorough, the Court adopts it in every respect.

Defendant, as the party seeking removal, bears the burden of demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction. In his objection to Judge Cousins' R&R, Cutlip raises several objections based on affirmative defenses or counterclaims that he may allege under federal law. ECF 15. However, [f]ederal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense . . . [n]or can federal jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim." Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (internal citations omitted). Cutlip also claims that the action involves a federal question because the action arises out of a federal land patent. Id. "Federal land patents . . . [however,] do not provide [a basis] for federal question jurisdiction." Virgin v. Cty. Of San Luis Obispo, 201 F.3d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561, 569-70 (1912)). Thus, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Cutlip's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the above-titled unlawful detainer action is REMANDED to Santa Clara Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.