Parks v. Chappell et al

Filing 6

ORDER Dismissing Federal Claims and Remanding Action to State Court. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/20/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service).(emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

STEVEN DEAN PARKS,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-14-1186 EMC (pr)

KEVIN CHAPPELL; et al.,

12

ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL
CLAIMS AND REMANDING ACTION
TO STATE COURT

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
14

This pro se prisoner’s civil rights action was originally filed in Marin County Superior Court

15

and later removed to federal court by Defendants because the complaint contained claims for, among

16

other things, violations of Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights and therefore presented a federal

17

question. This Court conducted an initial review of the complaint, determined that it failed to state a

18

claim for a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and granted leave to amend. This Court

19

required Plaintiff to file his amended complaint no later than April 30, 2014, and cautioned that

20

“[f]ailure to file the amended complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of the federal

21

claims and the remand of this action back to state court.” Docket # 5 at 4. Plaintiff did not file an

22

amended complaint, and the deadline by which to do so has long passed. Accordingly, the claims

23

for violations of Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights are DISMISSED.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

case therefore will be remanded to state court so that Plaintiff may litigate in his chosen forum. See

28

Swett v. Schenk, 792 F.2d 1447, 1450 (9th Cir. 1986) (“it is within the district court’s discretion,

1

once the basis for removal jurisdiction is dropped, whether to hear the rest of the action or remand it

2

to the state court from which it was removed”); Plute v. Roadway Package System, Inc., 141 F.

3

Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (court may remand sua sponte or on motion of a party). The

4

action is remanded to the Marin County Superior Court for such other and further proceedings as

5

that court deems proper. The Clerk shall close the file and send the necessary materials to the Marin

6

County Superior Court for the remand.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: June 20, 2014

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2