(PC) Abdulla v. Yates, No. 1:2008cv00551 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS 7 , And Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Remand 4 , signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/14/2009. It is ORDERED that: The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 30, 2008, is adopted in full; and Plaintiff's motion to remand, filed May 19, 2008, is DENIED. (Scrivner, E)

Download PDF
(PC) Abdulla v. Yates Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ABDULLAH, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00551 AWI DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND v. JAMES YATES, et al., (Doc. 7) Defendants. / 14 15 This is a civil action filed by plaintiff Hanif Salahuddin Abdullah (“plaintiff”), a state 16 prisoner proceeding pro. The action was removed from the Fresno County Superior Court to this 17 Court by defendant Yates on April 17, 2008. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand on May 19, 2008. 18 (Doc. 19). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 20 On October 30, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations that 21 recommended Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action be denied as the complaint contains both state 22 and federal claims. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained 23 notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed 24 within twenty days. On November 24, 2008, plaintiff filed an Objection. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 26 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 27 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In his objections, Plaintiff contends that he has the right to ignore his federal claims and 2 pursue only his state claims. As long as the complaint contains federal claims, the removal was 3 allowed under federal law and this action’s presence in federal court is proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 4 1441(a). Plaintiff remains free to request the court to dismiss the federal claims pursuant to Rule 5 41 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Once the court dismisses any federal claims, Plaintiff 6 may then file a motion requesting the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and 7 remand this action to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 30, 2008, is adopted in full; and 10 2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand, filed May 19, 2008, is DENIED. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: 0m8i78 February 14, 2009 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.