Coleman v. Arnswald
Filing
3
ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/17/2015 ORDERING the Clerk to assign a district judge to this case. IT IS RECOMMENDED that this matter be remanded to the Superior Court of Lassen County. Assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SAADHI ABDUL COLEMAN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-2353 CKD P
v.
ORDER AND
PATRICIA ARNSWALD,
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant.
16
17
Defendant, an employee of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at
18
High Desert State Prison, recently removed this action from the Superior Court of Lassen County.
19
Plaintiff is an inmate housed at California State Prison, Sacramento. In his complaint, which was
20
originally filed on June 4, 2015, plaintiff alleges that while he was an inmate at High Desert,
21
defendant denied plaintiff the ability to communicate with the Superior Court of Lassen County
22
and California’s Office of the Attorney General. Defendant removed, asserting plaintiff’s claims
23
arise under the First Amendment.
24
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may generally remove a civil action brought in
25
state court to a United States district court if the district court has original jurisdiction over the
26
claims presented. United States district courts have original jurisdiction over claims arising under
27
the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
28
/////
1
1
In his complaint, plaintiff makes no mention of the First Amendment, any other
2
Constitutional provision, or any other provision of federal law. Instead, plaintiff asserts his
3
claims arise under various provisions of California law including the California Tort Claims Act,
4
Government Code § 810 et. seq., California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 85, 86, and the California
5
Constitution. ECF No. 1 at 9 & 15. In the “Conclusion” portion of his complaint, plaintiff asks
6
“that this court deem defendant’s actions a violation of clearly established state law and grant
7
plaintiff relief.”
8
While plaintiff asserts facts which might amount to a claim arising under federal law, it is
9
certainly plaintiff’s prerogative whether to pursue a federal claim, and it is clear that plaintiff has
10
chosen not to do so.1 Furthermore, although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible
11
pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice of claims. Jones v. Community Redev.
12
Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984).
13
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a district court must remand any removed case if at any point
14
it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Because plaintiff does not bring any
15
of his claims under any provision of federal law, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
16
plaintiff’s claims and removal of this action was improper.
17
18
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that Clerk of the Court assign a district
court judge to this case; and
19
20
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be remanded to the Superior Court of
Lassen County.
21
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
22
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
23
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
24
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
25
1
26
27
28
The fact that plaintiff has filed approximately 15 different actions in this court indicate that
plaintiff has at least a basic understanding of the concept that claims can arise under federal and /
or state laws. For example, in his amended complaint filed in 2:13-cv-1753 KJM CKD P (ECF
No. 17), plaintiff asserts claims under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (id. at 1) as well as claims for “violations of clearly established state laws” (id. at
1).
2
1
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
2
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
3
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
4
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
5
Dated: November 17, 2015
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
cole2353.rem
12
13
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?