Price v. Mesa Police Department et al

Filing 4

ORDER that this matter is remanded to the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona. The Clerk of Court must mail a certified copy of this Order to: Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of the Superior Court. The Clerk of Court must close this federal case. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 12/18/14. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter). (LSP)

1

WO

MDR

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Rion S. Price,

10
11
12

No. CV 14-02589-PHX-SPL (MHB)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

Mesa Police Department, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

I.

Procedural History

16

On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff Rion S. Price, who is confined in the Maricopa

17

County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se Complaint in the Superior Court of Maricopa

18

County, Arizona, against Defendants Mesa Police Department, Cory McDowell, Brandon

19

M. Lavin, Ashley L. Elliff, Joshua N. Gardner, Brandon Grissom, Kevin J. Jacobson, and

20

Lidia P. Gonzalez.

21

Jacobson, and Elliff (the Removing Defendants), filed a Notice of Removal (Doc. 1).

22

The Court will remand this case to the Superior Court of Maricopa County.

23

II.

On November 24, 2014, Defendants Mesa Police Department,

Remand

24

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and “possess only that power

25

authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America,

26

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited

27

jurisdiction” and the burden of establishing jurisdiction is on the party asserting

28

jurisdiction. Id. Limitations on the court’s jurisdiction must neither be disregarded nor

1

evaded. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). The Court is

2

obligated to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate

3

Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any

4

time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter

5

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court

6

determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the

7

action.”).

8

“The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.”

9

California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). The party

10

invoking the statute bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Id. “The

11

presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded

12

complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal

13

question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

14

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see California ex rel. Lockyer,

15

375 F.3d at 838. The plaintiff is the master of the claim and “may avoid federal

16

jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. A plaintiff,

17

therefore, may choose to have a case heard in state court “by eschewing claims based on

18

federal law.” Id. at 399. See also California ex rel. Lockyer, 375 F.3d at 838-39.

19

In their Notice of Removal, the Removing Defendants assert that removal is

20

“based on a claim arising under federal law” because Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint

21

that Defendants used excessive force when arresting him. Although Plaintiff does allege

22

that Defendants used “excessive force,” he does not allege that his case arises under 42

23

U.S.C. § 1983, that Defendants violated his federal rights, or that his claim arises under

24

federal law.

25

“Arizona courts have long recognized that a defendant has a duty to act reasonably

26

in response to criminal conduct and that unreasonable, excessive use of force may result

27

in liability.” Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller, 141 P.3d 754, 760 (Ariz. Ct.

28

App. 2006). “An injured party may bring an action for damages arising out of allegedly

-2-

1

unwarranted or excessive force.” Id. at 761. The use of the phrase “excessive force,”

2

without more, does not create federal jurisdiction. The Removing Defendants, therefore,

3

have failed to meet their burden of establishing federal jurisdiction over this case. Thus,

4

the Court will remand this case to the Superior Court of Maricopa County.

5

IT IS ORDERED:

6
7
8

(1)

This matter is remanded to the Superior Court of Maricopa County,

Arizona.
(2)

9

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

10
11
12
13
14
15

(3)

The Clerk of Court must close this federal case.

Dated this 18th day of December, 2014.

16
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-