Mach v. Arizona, State of et al

Filing 11

ORDER that the 9 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied as moot. This matter is remanded to Maricopa County Superior Court and the Clerk of Court must mail them a certified copy of this order. The Clerk must close this case. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/4/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Letter to Superior Court)(LFIG)

Download PDF
1 2 MDR WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 William Chapman Mach, 10 11 12 No. CV 13-1356-PHX-DGC (SPL) Plaintiff, vs. ORDER State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 On July 8, 2013, Defendants State of Arizona, Arizona Department of Corrections, 17 and Charles L. Ryan (“the Removing Defendants”) removed this case from the Superior 18 Court of Maricopa County, Arizona. On July 15 and 16, 2013, respectively, Defendants 19 Corizon, Inc. (Corizon) and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Wexford) consented to and 20 joined the removal. 21 In a July 17, 2013 order, the Court noted that removal was appropriate because the 22 Amended Complaint alleged, among other things, a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. 23 § 1983. The Court dismissed the Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to file 24 on the court-approved form. See LRCiv 3.4. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a 25 second amended complaint on a court-approved form. 26 On August 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) and an 27 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 9). His two-count Second Amended 28 Complaint names Defendants State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Corrections, 1 Wexford, and Corizon. Plaintiff alleges a state-law negligence claim (Count One) and a 2 state-law breach of contract claim (Count Two). 3 jurisdiction over the case because he is only alleging state law claims. He asserts that the Court lacks 4 Although “jurisdiction must be analyzed on the basis of the pleadings filed at the 5 time of removal without reference to subsequent amendments,” and “a plaintiff may not 6 compel remand by amending a complaint to eliminate the federal question upon which 7 removal was based,” Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 8 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998), “a district court has discretion to remand to state court a 9 removed case involving pendent claims upon a proper determination that retaining 10 jurisdiction over the case would be inappropriate,” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 11 U.S. 343, 357 (1988). “[W]hen the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in 12 its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the 13 exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice.” Id. at 350 (footnote 14 omitted). 15 Regardless of whether Plaintiff may be attempting to manipulate the forum by 16 deleting his federal-law claim, the Court, in its discretion, concludes that remand of the 17 Second Amended Complaint “best serves the principles of economy, convenience, 18 fairness, and comity which underlie the pendent jurisdiction doctrine.” Id. at 357. Thus, 19 the Court will remand this case to the Maricopa County Superior Court. 20 IT IS ORDERED: 21 (1) The Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 9) is denied as moot. 22 (2) This matter is remanded to Maricopa County Superior Court. 23 (3) The Clerk of Court must mail a certified copy of this order to: Michael K. Jeanes Clerk of the Superior Court Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court 201 West Jefferson Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2205 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 1 (4) 2 Dated this 4th day of December, 2013. The Clerk of Court must close this case. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?