Amir-Sharif v. TDCJ et al
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 13 MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting re: 4 MOTION to Remand, 5 MOTION to Remand, 12 MOTION For Court to Render Decisions on "All" Pending Motions/Requests, 7 MOTION, 11 AMENDED MOTION ; Court Orders this suit remanded to the 36th Judicial District of Bee County, Texas. (Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(vrios, 2)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
LAKEITH RAQIB AMIR-SHARIF,
TDCJ, et al,
July 24, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL NO. 2:16-CV-366
Plaintiff Lakeith Raqib Amir-Sharif (“Amir-Sharif”) is an inmate in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Criminal Institutions Division (“TDCJ-CID”), and
currently is incarcerated at the Ramsey II Prison Unit in Rosharon, Texas. He filed
his initial 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the TDCJ-CID Defendants in state
court on April 6, 2016, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as damages.
See Dkt. No. 1. His complaint makes allegations as to actions that occurred at the
Garza West unit in Beeville, Texas, and accordingly, Amir-Sharif brought his state
court lawsuit in the 36th Judicial District of Bee County, Texas, where he
attempted to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 13 at n.1. Amir-Sharif filed a first
amended complaint in state court on May 27, 2016, which the Magistrate Judge to
whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) recommends should be
considered the live pleading in this case. Id. at 9.
Defendants removed this action to federal court on August 29, 2016, Dkt. No.
1, and filed a motion to dismiss on September 1, 2016, Dkt. No. 2, alleging that
Amir-Sharif’s claims should be dismissed pursuant to the three strikes rule
established at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Amir-Sharif responded to the motion to dismiss,
Dkt. No. 3, and subsequently filed several motions effectively requesting remand of
this action to state court, Dkt. Nos. 4, 5, 7, 11, and 12. Defendants timely responded
to these motions, and oppose remand. Dkt. No. 6.
The Court has before it now Amir-Sharif’s original and first amended
complaints, Dkt. No. 1-2 and Dkt. No. 6-1; Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. No.
2; Amir-Sharif’s motions to remand, Dkt. Nos. 4, 5, 7, 11, and 12; and the
Memorandum and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge to whom this case
was referred (“M&R”), Dkt. No. 13. The deadline to file objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations has passed, and the docket sheet
shows that no objections have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (setting 14-day
deadline to file objections); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (same); see also M&R at 16
(advising parties of 14-day deadline).
The M&R, inter alia, recommends that the Court find Amir-Sharif’s first
amended complaint is the live pleading in this action and interpret this pleading as
asserting only state-law causes of action. See Dkt. No. 13. On this basis, the M&R
recommends that this Court grant Amir-Sharif’s motions to remand this case to
state court. Id. at 9. The M&R also addresses Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt.
No. 2. This Court will not address this motion to dismiss, as it finds that: (i) AmirSharif’s first amended complaint is indeed his live pleading, (ii) this complaint
states only state-law causes of action, and (iii) accordingly, this Court is without
subject matter jurisdiction to hear Amir-Sharif’s claims, such that remand of this
case to state court is required.
After independently reviewing the record and considering the applicable law,
the Court ADOPTS IN PART the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations as described herein; GRANTS Amir-Sharif’s motions to remand,
Dkt. Nos. 4, 5, 7, 11, and 12; and ORDERS this suit remanded to the 36th Judicial
District of Bee County, Texas.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 24th day of July, 2017.
Senior United States District Judge
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?