Hamilton v. Corujo

Filing 20

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/30/2017 DENYING without prejudice 18 and 19 Motions to Vacate and RECOMMENDING that 15 Motion to Remand be granted, this action be remanded to the Amador County Superior court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Clerk of Court be directed to serve any order adopting these findings and recommendations on the Amador County Superior Court. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID HAMILTON, 12 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-0817 JAM KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER and FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS K. CORUJO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Defendant removed this action from the 18 Amador County Superior Court, Case No. 17-CVC-09963. Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed 19 and plaintiff was granted leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the removal, and on 20 June 5, 2017, defendant filed a response. On June 8, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the 21 case back to the Amador County Superior Court. 22 Pursuant to § 1447(c), plaintiff contends that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 23 because he is raising only state law claims. Defendants counter that plaintiff alleges a violation of 24 his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (ECF 25 No. 14 at 1.) 26 27 In the original complaint, filed on a state court complaint form, plaintiff asserts causes of action for personal injury, oppression and emotional distress, and intentional tort. Plaintiff 28 1 1 includes “unreasonable and unwarranted use of unnecessary excessive force causing injury” by 2 the “other box,” but attached only an intentional tort causes of action in which he again discusses 3 the use of unreasonable force. (ECF No. 2 at 11.) 4 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove from state court any action “of 5 which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” Federal courts “shall 6 have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 7 United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The removal statute is strictly construed, and defendant bears 8 the burden of establishing grounds for removal. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 9 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); Provincial Government of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 10 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). “[F]ederal jurisdiction ‘must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right 11 of removal in the first instance,’” Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting 12 Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). 13 “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded 14 complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 15 presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc., v. Williams, 16 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The rule makes the 17 plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on 18 state law.” Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392. 19 In this instance, plaintiff's complaint does not plead claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. 20 § 1983. Plaintiff is correct that he alleges state law claims and relies solely on state law. 21 Defendant alleges that plaintiff's claims arise under the Eighth Amendment; however, there is no 22 mention of the Constitution or of plaintiff's federal constitutional rights. Plaintiff specifically sets 23 forth his state law claims of personal injury, oppression and emotional distress and intentional 24 tort. Therefore, plaintiff is correct that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over 25 this action. 26 A motion to remand is the proper procedure for challenging removal. Babasa v. 27 LensCrafters, Inc., 498 F.3d 972, 974 (9th Cir. 2007). Where doubt regarding the right to removal 28 exists, a case should be remanded to state court. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 2 1 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). In this case, the court finds that plaintiff has 2 exercised his right to rely exclusively on state law, although the court expresses no opinion on the 3 viability of those claims. Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392. The court lacks subject matter 4 jurisdiction over this action and it should be remanded to the Amador County Superior Court. 5 6 In light of these recommendations, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to vacate (ECF Nos. 18, 19) are denied without prejudice. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 15) be granted; 9 2. This action be remanded to the Amador County Superior Court for lack of subject 10 11 12 matter jurisdiction; and 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to serve any order adopting these findings and recommendations on the Amador County Superior Court. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 15 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 17 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 18 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 19 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 20 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 Dated: August 30, 2017 22 23 24 /hamil0817.rem 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?