Bryant v. Gallagher, et al.
Filing
5
ORDER REMANDING ACTION to Kern County Superior Court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/28/11. Copy of Remand Order sent to Kern County Superior Court. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01927-AWI-SKO PC
Kern County Superior Court
Case No. S-1500-cv-272672-WDP
v.
ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO
KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
P. GALLAGHER, et al.,
Defendants.
14
(Doc. 1)
/
15
16
Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action. On
17
November 17, 2011, Defendants Gallagher, Harrington, and the California Department of
18
Corrections and Rehabilitation removed this action from Kern County Superior Court. In their
19
notice of removal, Defendants contend that Plaintiff alleges retaliation in violation of the First
20
Amendment and a violation of his right to access the courts, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
21
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove from state court any action “of which
22
the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” Federal courts “shall have original
23
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
24
28 U.S.C. § 1331. The removal statute is strictly construed, and Defendants bear the burden of
25
establishing grounds for removal. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. V. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32, 123
26
S.Ct. 366 (2002); Provincial Government of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087
27
(9th Cir. 2009). Courts “must consider whether federal jurisdiction exists, even if no objection is
28
made to removal, and even if both parties stipulate to federal jurisdiction,” Rains v. Criterion
1
1
Systems, Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted), and “federal jurisdiction ‘must
2
be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance,’” Duncan v. Stuetzle,
3
76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)).
4
“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded
5
complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is
6
presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc., v. Williams,
7
482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425 (1987) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The rule
8
makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive
9
reliance on state law.” Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392.
10
Although Plaintiff could have brought this action under section 1983 for violation of his
11
federal constitutional rights, he did not do so. Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any mention of the
12
United States Constitution, federal constitutional amendments, section 1983, or any other federal
13
basis for relief.1 While Plaintiff uses the word retaliation and he refers to obstruction of his legal
14
pursuits, those terms alone are insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction in light of the fact that
15
Plaintiff’s allegations do not give rise to claims which are redressable exclusively under federal law,
16
in the face of Plaintiff’s decision to file suit in state court on a state form complaint, and in the
17
absence of any language referring to federal constitutional rights or section 1983.
18
The Court finds that Plaintiff has exercised his right to rely exclusively on state law, although
19
the Court expresses no opinion on the viability of those claims. Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392.
20
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and it shall be remanded to Kern County
21
Superior Court.
22
For the reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
23
1.
24
25
This action is REMANDED to Kern County Superior Court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction; and
///
26
27
28
1
In addition to bases cited by Defendants, Plaintiff alleges in one sentence a denial of his rights to due
process and equal protection, but the California Constitution provides for those protections as well and no reference
is made to the federal constitution.
2
1
2.
2
The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on Kern County Superior
Court.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated:
0m8i78
November 28, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
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?
