(PC)Garcia v. Lacey et al, No. 1:2015cv00774 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That Plaintiff's Motion For Remand Be Denied (Doc. 4 ), Objections, If Any, Due Within Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/19/2015. F&R's referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 8/24/2015. (Fahrney, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUILLERMO GARCIA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. 1:15-cv-00774-AWI-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REMAND BE DENIED (Doc. 4.) B. A. LACEY, et al., 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 16 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 This is a civil action filed by plaintiff Guillermo Garcia (APlaintiff@), a state prisoner 20 proceeding pro se. This action was initiated by civil Complaint filed by Plaintiff in the 21 Tuolomne County Superior Court on October 31, 2011 (case #CV57059). On or about April 22 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.1 23 defendants Lacey, Lackner, Baldwin, Koenig, Chavez, Quinn, Wattle, Tennison, and 24 Kavanaugh (“Defendants@) removed the case to federal court by filing a Notice of Removal of 25 Action under 28 U.S.C. ' 1441. (Doc. 2.) Defendants also filed a request for screening of the 26 complaint by the court. (Id.) (Doc. 2, Exh. E.) On May 20, 2015, 27 28 1 Defendants state that the amended complaint alleged, for the first time, violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 2 ¶3.) 1 1 On June 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ Notice of Removal and 2 Request for Screening. (Doc. 4.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s opposition as a motion to 3 remand this case to the Tuolomne County Superior Court. Defendants have not filed an 4 opposition. 5 II. REMOVAL AND REMAND 6 Under 28 U.S.C. ' 1441(a), a defendant may remove from state court any action Aof 7 which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.@ 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 8 Federal courts Ashall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 9 laws, or treaties of the United States.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 1331. Removal of an action under 28 10 U.S.C. ' 1441(a) depends solely on the nature of the plaintiff's complaint, and a case is 11 properly removed only if Aa right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United 12 States [constitutes] an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff's cause of action.@ Gully v. 13 First National Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936). The plaintiff is the master of his or 14 her own complaint and is free to ignore the federal cause of action and rest the claim solely on 15 a state cause of action. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 16 (quotations and citation omitted). 17 Because of the ACongressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts 18 on removal,@ the removal statute is strictly construed against removal.2 Shamrock Oil & Gas 19 Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-109 (1941); Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 20 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff objecting to the removal may file a motion asking 21 the district court to remand the case to state court. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 69 22 (1996). AThe burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.@ 23 Harris v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Gould 24 v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986)). Federal jurisdiction 25 Amust be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.@ Id.; Gaus 26 27 28 2 AAt the core of the federal judicial system is the principle that the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.@ Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). 2 1 v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Courts Amust consider whether federal 2 jurisdiction exists, even if no objection is made to removal, and even if both parties stipulate to 3 federal jurisdiction.@ Rains v. Criterion Systems, Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996) 4 (citations omitted). 5 Well-Pleaded Complaint 6 AThe presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well- 7 pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 8 question is presented on the face of the plaintiff=s properly pleaded complaint.@ Caterpillar, 9 Inc., v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (internal quotations and citations omitted). AThe 10 rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by 11 exclusive reliance on state law.@ Id. 12 III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REMAND 13 Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ Notice of Removal, arguing that “1. This court has 14 dismissed plaintiff’s request to [a]mend such civil violations under Garcia v. M. Mix 1:10-cv- 15 02097 BAM (PC) [and] 2. This court does not have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” 16 (Motion, Doc. 4 at 1.) Plaintiff asserts that this court dismissed his claims for retaliation, cell 17 searches, confiscation of property, harassment, and discrimination, against defendant F.X. 18 Chavez and B. A. Lacey in his prior case no. 1:10-cv-02097. Plaintiff argues that most of his 19 complaint for the present action alleges destruction of his personal property, because the court 20 mentioned in case 1:10-cv-2097 that “Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy 21 available under California law.” (Id. at 2:16-17.) Plaintiff also argues that his complaint 22 contains documents relating to state laws that are irrelevant and should be excluded from this 23 court. 24 Plaintiff requests the court to strike certain portions of his complaint which refer to 25 deliberate indifference or cruel and unusual punishment under the United States Constitution, 26 or anything arising under § 1983. Plaintiff argues that the court has the authority to strike 27 improper matters or non-conforming pleadings under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 28 435 & 436. Plaintiff asserts that he seeks to proceed only under California law. Plaintiff also 3 1 argues that he is entitled to recover punitive damages under California Code of Civil Procedure 2 § 3294. 3 IV. DISCUSSION 4 As stated above, removal of an action under 28 U.S.C. ' 1441(a) depends solely on the 5 nature of the plaintiff's complaint. Gully, 299 U.S. at 112. This case now proceeds on 6 Plaintiff’s amended complaint filed in state court and removed to federal court. The court has 7 thoroughly reviewed Plaintiff=s amended complaint and finds claims which Plaintiff has based 8 on violation of the United States Constitution and Plaintiff’s right therein to be free of cruel and 9 unusual punishment. (Doc. 2-1 at 107-112 ¶¶242, 247, 252, 254, 259(1)). This is sufficient to 10 confer federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s arguments that the case should be remanded because this 11 court rejected similar claims in a prior case, or because he is entitled to recover punitive 12 damages in state court, have no merit. 13 Plaintiff does not deny that the amended complaint contains federal claims. In fact, 14 Plaintiff has submitted a list of twenty separate paragraphs taken from the amended complaint 15 which refer to deliberate indifference, cruel and unusual punishment, the United States 16 Constitution, and the Eighth Amendment. (Doc 4 at 9.) Plaintiff requests that the court strike 17 these references to federal law from the amended complaint. However, this court’s jurisdiction 18 over the amended complaint depends on the nature of the amended complaint at the time it was 19 removed to federal court. The Ninth Circuit has “long held that post-removal amendments to 20 the pleadings cannot affect whether a case is removable, because the propriety of removal is 21 determined solely on the basis of the pleadings filed in state court.” Williams v. Costco 22 Wholesale Corp., 471 F.3d 975, 976 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing see Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l 23 Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998); O'Halloran v. Univ. of Wash., 24 856 F.2d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir. 1988)). Here, the nature of Plaintiff's amended complaint on its 25 face creates no doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance. The court finds that 26 Plaintiff=s amended complaint plainly presents claims arising under federal law to warrant 27 subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore the instant action implicates a federal interest 28 4 1 sufficient to sustain removal of the action to the federal court. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for 2 remand should be denied. 3 V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 The court finds that federal jurisdiction exists over Plaintiff=s complaint, and the action 5 is removable. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to 6 remand, filed on February 23, 2015, be DENIED. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within thirty 9 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate 11 Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed 12 within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 13 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 14 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 15 (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 19, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
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.
