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)

Download PDF
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

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?