(PC) Martin 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' #3 Request for Clarification as moot and DIRECTING the Clerk to randomly assign a district judge to this action. Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley 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 the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Sacramento and to close the case. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. New Case Number: 2:24-cv-3380 TLN JDP (PC). (Deputy Clerk KS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
AMAYA MARTIN
12
13
14
Case No. 2:24-cv-3380-JDP (P)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER; FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Defendants California, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
18
California Institutions for Women, and Officer Davis 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 12, 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. 3, 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
12
the 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?