Garcia v. Lacey et al
Filing
8
ORDER on 7 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER REMANDING Matter to State Court, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/9/2015. Case REMANDED to Tuolumne County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
GUILLERMO GARCIA,
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
13
1:15-cv-00774-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER ON FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
vs.
B. A. LACEY, et al.,
Defendants.
14
ORDER REMANDING MATTER TO
STATE COURT
(Doc. Nos. 4, 7)
15
16
Guillermo Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights
17
action. On May 20, 2015, Defendants removed this case from the Tuolumne County Superior
18
Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The operative Complaint is the First
19
Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On June 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand and a
20
motion to strike. See Doc. No. 4. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
21
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
22
On July 20, 2015, a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) were entered that
23
recommended denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand. See Doc. No. 7. The parties were granted
24
thirty days in which to file objections to the F&R. See id. The thirty-day time period has
25
passed, and no party has filed objections or any other response to the findings and
26
recommendations.
27
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B), this court has conducted
28
a de novo review of this case. Given the FAC’s references to the United States Constitution,
1
1
and the prayer for a declaration that the United States Constitution was violated by Defendants,
2
the Court agrees with the F&R that a federal question is present.
3
respectfully does not agree that this case should remain in federal court.
However, the Court
4
As part of Plaintiff’s opposition, Plaintiff indicated that he intends to pursue only
5
California law claims. See Doc. No. 4 at p.2. Plaintiff moved the Court to strike references in
6
the FAC to “deliverate [sic], cruel and unusual punishment under the Federal Constitution of
7
the United States or anything else that arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” See Doc. No. 4 at Ex.
8
A. If Plaintiff does not wish to pursue federal claims, the Court sees no reason to leave such
9
claims in the FAC. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request and strike all references in the FAC
10
to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1
11
With the striking of all references to the United States Constitution and § 1983, the FAC
12
contains only causes of action based on the California constitution and California law. In other
13
words, there is no longer a federal question present. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district
14
court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district
15
court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Because the Court has
16
resolved the federal questions, there is no compelling reason to exercise supplemental
17
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. The Court will decline to exercise supplemental
18
jurisdiction, and will remand this matter to the Tuolumne County Superior Court. See Macri v.
19
King Cnty., 126 F.3d 1125, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 1997) (district court acted within its discretion in
20
declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remanding state law claims).
21
22
ORDER
23
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
24
1.
25
The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. No. 7) are adopted in part and
declined to be adopted in part, as discussed above;
26
27
28
1
The Court did not see an express reference to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
However, the First Amended Complaint is over 70 pages long. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court will
order stricken any references to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2
1
2.
2
3
only state law claims is GRANTED;
3.
4.
6
7
10
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court DECLINES to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action;
5.
8
9
All references to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint are STRICKEN;
4
5
Plaintiff’s request to strike references to federal claims/questions and proceed on
Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s
motion to remand (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED; and
6.
The Clerk shall remand this matter forthwith to the Tuolumne County Superior
Court.
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 9, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
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?