Castlin v. Cate et al

Filing 29

ORDER Dismissing Federal Claims and Remanding Case to State Court. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/31/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ARON D. CASTLIN,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-2084 EMC (pr)

Plaintiff,
v.
M. CATE, Director of California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation; et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL
CLAIMS AND REMANDING CASE TO
STATE COURT

12
13

Defendants.
____________________________________/

14
15

Aron D. Castlin, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, commenced this action by filing a

16

complaint in Del Norte County Superior Court. Defendants then removed the action to federal court

17

because claims alleged in the complaint for violations of Castlin's rights under the U.S. Constitution

18

presented a federal question. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court reviewed the complaint,

19

focusing on the federal claims in it. The Court determined that the complaint failed to state a claim

20

upon which relief could be granted for any of the federal claims. The Court dismissed the complaint

21

with leave to amend no later than August 3, 2012, and later extended the deadline for the amended

22

complaint to October 26, 2012. The deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint has long

23

passed, and he has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the claims for relief under 42

24

U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

25

granted.

26

With the dismissal of the § 1983 claims, several state law claims pled in the complaint

27

remain for adjudication. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law

28

claims now that the federal question claims have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

1

Castlin ought to be allowed to litigate his state law claims in state court where he first asserted those

2

claims. The case therefore will be remanded to state court. See Swett v. Schenk, 792 F.2d 1447,

3

1450 (9th Cir. 1986) ("it is within the district court's discretion, once the basis for removal

4

jurisdiction is dropped, whether to hear the rest of the action or remand it to the state court from

5

which it was removed"); Plute v. Roadway Package System, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (N.D.

6

Cal. 2001) (court may remand sua sponte or on motion of a party).

7

The action is remanded to the Del Norte County Superior Court for such other and further

8

proceedings as that court deems proper. The Clerk shall close the file and send the necessary

9

materials to the Del Norte County Superior Court for the remand.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: January 31, 2013

14

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2