Walker v. City of Sacramento et al

Filing 27

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/29/2018 GRANTING 23 Motion to Remand and REMANDING this case to Sacramento County Superior Court. CASE CLOSED. (Fabillaran, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

KUWESE COREYELLE WALKER,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-00656-MCE-EFB

v.

ORDER

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, CA; THE
SACRAMENTO POLICE
DEPARTMENT; and DOES 1-5 IN
THEIR OFFICIAL AND PERSONAL
CAPACITY,

16

Defendants.

17
18

This lawsuit arises from the detention, search and arrest of Plaintiff Kuwese

19

Coreyelle Walker (‘Plaintiff”) for domestic violence by the Sacramento Police Department

20

and a subsequent motor vehicle accident that occurred when the patrol car transporting

21

Plaintiff to the Sacramento County Jail hit a concrete pillar in the Jail’s underground

22

parking lot as the officer driving the car was parking. Plaintiff’s complaint, initially filed in

23

state court, was removed here on federal question grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

24

inasmuch as Plaintiff’s lawsuit included claims made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

25
26

On November 1, 2016, Defendant City of Sacramento1 filed its Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment as to all claims except for Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim ECF

27
1

28

According to the City of Sacramento, naming the Sacramento Police Department as an
additional defendant was in error and the City is the only defendant who has appeared.

1

1

No. 15. That claim is based on Plaintiff’s allegation that he was injured when the patrol

2

car collided with the parking lot pillar at a speed estimated to be less than two miles per

3

hour.

4

By Memorandum and Order filed October 6, 2017 (ECF No. 22), this Court

5

granted Defendant City’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in its entirety, leaving

6

only the negligence claim described above. The City of Sacramento now moves to

7

remand the case back to state court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367 (c)(3) and 1447 on

8

grounds that this Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction now that the

9

federal claims upon which federal jurisdiction was based have been dismissed. As

10

stated above, once Plaintiff’s other claims, including his federal claim pursuant to

11

42 U.S.C. § 1983, were dismissed by the Court’s October 6, 2017 Order, Plaintiff’s sole

12

remaining cause of action is a common-law negligence claim sounding in state, and not

13

federal law.

14

Plaintiff has failed to oppose the City’s Motion to Remand, and the Court agrees it

15

should decline to exercise jurisdiction over this matter now that all federal claims have

16

been dismissed. Consequently, the City of Sacramento’s Motion to Remand (ECF

17

No. 23) is GRANTED.2 The Clerk of Court is accordingly directed to remand this case to

18

the originating state court, the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the

19

County of Sacramento, for final adjudication. The Clerk shall thereafter close the case in

20

this Court.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 29, 2018

23
24
25
26
27
2

28

Having determined that oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this
matter submitted on the briefs in accordance with E.D. Local Rule 230(g).

2