Phelps v. Cate et al
ORDER ADOPTING 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DENYING 5 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/22/2014. Defendants shall submit an amended notice of removal within five (5) days. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
) Case No.: 1:13-cv-02087-LJO-BAM (PC)
) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
) RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
Plaintiff Mark Phelps (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Gurule removed this action from the Kern County
Superior Court on December 19, 2013.
On August 13, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that
Plaintiff’s motion to remand be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the
parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days of
service. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed objections on September 5, 2014. (ECF No. 12.)
In his objections, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in determining that a federal
question appeared on the face of his well-pleaded complaint. Plaintiff now contends that the “federal
words” in his complaint are “essentially accidental” and attributable to his inmate assistant. (ECF No.
12, pp. 2, 6.) Plaintiff indicates that he filed a federal action in March 2013 in Case No. 1:13-cv00309-LJO-MSJ PC and he now intends to litigate his state issues in state, not federal, court. Plaintiff
also attempts to withdraw his concession, which was stated in his moving papers, that his complaint
contains federal issues.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections, but is not persuaded that the Magistrate Judge
erred. It is evident from Plaintiff’s complaint (and from his original concession) that he is pursuing
federal causes of action over which this Court maintains federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §
1331. For example, in Count 1, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Campbell, Dalton, Gurule and
Rangel violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to conduct searches and
failing to protect Plaintiff, which resulted in inmates Charest and Medina attempting to murder
Plaintiff. (ECF No. 1-1, p. 18.) In Count 2, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Stinson, Wadkins and
Ramirez violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to protect him from, and
refusing to stop, the attack by other inmates. (ECF No. 1-1, p. 18.) In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants Cate and Stainer violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 1-1, p.
19.) In Count IV, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Stainer violated his Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights by denying him due process in connection with his administrative segregation.
(ECF No. 1-1, pp. 19-20.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de
novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections,
the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 13, 2014, are adopted in full;
Plaintiff’s motion to remand, filed on January 13, 2014, is DENIED;
Defendants shall submit an amended notice of removal within five (5) days following
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
service of this order to correct defective errors in form; and
This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent
with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
September 22, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?