(PC) Tarpley v. State of California, et al

Filing 9

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 01/28/2025 DENYING Defendants' #4 Request for Clarification as moot and DIRECTING the Clerk to randomly assign a district judge to this action. District Judge Dena M. Coggins and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson assigned for all further proceedings. It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's #7 Motion to Remand be granted, this case be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sacramento, and the Clerk be directed to send a certified copy of this order to Superior Court of California in and for the County of Sacramento and to close the case. Referred to Judge Dena M. Coggins. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. New Case Number: 2:24-cv-3377 DC JDP (PC). (Deputy Clerk KS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHANIE TARPLEY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. Case No. 2:24-cv-3377-JDP (P) ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Defendants California, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Central 18 California Woman’s Facility, and Deputy Youngblood removed this action from Sacramento 19 Superior Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff moves to 20 remand, ECF No. 7; defendants do not oppose remand, ECF No. 8. I recommend that the matter 21 be remanded. 22 Plaintiff, a former inmate, filed this action on September 10, 2024, in Sacramento County 23 Superior Court. ECF No. 1 at 7. The complaint brings six state causes of action and one 24 federal—violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 17-29. On December 4, 2024, defendants 25 removed this action on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 2. Plaintiff then filed an 26 amended complaint, wherein she deleted her federal claim. ECF No. 6. Shortly thereafter, she 27 filed the instant motion to remand. ECF No. 7. Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition, 28 in which they join plaintiff’s request for remand. ECF No. 8. 1 1 Recently, the Supreme Court announced that when a plaintiff amends her complaint to 2 delete the federal-law claims that enabled removal, leaving only state-law claims, federal courts 3 lose supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, and the case must be remanded. Royal Canin 4 U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677, 2025 WL 96212, at *11 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025). Plaintiff 5 has deleted her federal claims, and so remand is warranted. 6 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 7 1. Defendants’ request for clarification, ECF No. 4, is denied as moot. 8 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this action. 9 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 10 1. Plaintiff’s motion to remand, ECF No. 7, be granted. 11 2. This case be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the 12 County of Sacramento. 13 14 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to send a certified copy of this order to Superior Court of California in and for the County of Sacramento and to close the case. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 17 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 18 court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 19 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 20 within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 21 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 22 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 23 1991). 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: January 28, 2025 27 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 2

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?