Jones v. Adams, et al.

Filing 16

ORDER REMANDING ACTION to Kern County Superior Court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/5/2013. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JASON EARL JONES,

CASE No. 1:12-cv-01432-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO
KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13

(ECF No. 15)
14

WILLIAM ADAMS, et al.,
CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

15
16
17

Defendants.
_____________________________/

18
Plaintiff Jason Earl Jones is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action
19

originally filed on November 3, 2011 in Kern County Superior Court.1 (Notice of

20
Removal, ECF No. 1, Ex. A.) Defendants Borrero, Gricewich, Phillips, Tarnoff, Wilson
21
and State of California (“Defendants”) removed this action from state court based
22
upon federal question jurisdiction on August 27, 2012. (Id.)
23
On December 14, 2012, the district judge assigned to this case adopted
24
25
26
27
28

1

Jason Earl Jones v. State of California, et al., Kern County Superior Court Case No.

S-1500-cv-275419-SPC.

-1-

1

magistrate’s findings and recommendations denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s

2

motions for remand and for sanctions. (Order Adopt F&R, ECF No. 14.)

3

On January 2, 2013, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii),

4

the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all claims brought

5

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with all state law claims to be remanded. (Stip. to Dismiss.,

6

ECF No. 15.)

7

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has exercised his right to rely

8

exclusively on state law, although the Court expresses no opinion on the viability of

9

those claims. Caterpillar, Inc., v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (plaintiff is the

10

master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on

11

state law.)

12

When removal is based on the presence of a federal cause of action, a district

13

court may remand the pendent or supplemental state law claims to the state court

14

once the federal claims have been eliminated. See Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co.,

15

934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court declines to exercise supplemental

16

jurisdiction over any state law claim absent a cognizable federal claim. 28 U.S.C. §

17

1367(a)(c); Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th

18

Cir. 2001).

19

Because there is no remaining federal question and the Court declines

20

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, this Court lacks subject matter

21

jurisdiction. Remand to the Kern County Superior Court is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. §

22

1447(c); Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th

23

Cir. 2010).

24

For the reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1.

26

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
state law claims;

27
28

-2-

2.

1

The Court expresses no opinion as to the merits of Plaintiff’s state law
causes of action;

2
3.

3

This action is REMANDED forthwith to Kern County Superior Court due
to this Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

4
4.

5

The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on Kern County
Superior Court; and

6
5.

7

The Clerk shall close this case.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 5, 2013

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
B9ed48
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-