(PC) Castaneda v. Daley, et al., No. 1:2015cv01863 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, REMANDING ACTION TO THE FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO TERMINATE THIS ACTION signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/6/2016. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESUS BONILLA CASTANEDA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 S. DALEY et al., 15 16 17 No. 1:15-cv-01863-DAD-SAB Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, REMANDING ACTION TO THE FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO TERMINATE THIS ACTION (Doc. Nos. 11, 22, 23) 18 19 20 Plaintiff Jesus Bonilla Castaneda is appearing pro se in this civil rights action. Plaintiff 21 declined to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(c). (Doc. No 8.) Accordingly, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 Defendants removed this action to this court from the Fresno County Superior Court on 25 December 11, 2015. (Doc. No. 2.) By order dated February 5, 2016, plaintiff’s complaint was 26 screened by the court and dismissed with leave to amend. (Doc. No. 10.) Rather than file an 27 amended complaint, on March 7, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to remand this case back to state 28 court. (Doc. No. 11.) On May 16, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 1 1 recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion to remand the action back to the Fresno 2 County Superior Court be granted. (Doc. No. 22.) Those findings and recommendations were 3 served on the parties and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty 4 days. Plaintiff filed objections on June 16, 2016. (Doc. No. 23.) 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 6 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 7 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 8 by proper analysis. In his objections, plaintiff contends that he now wishes to allege a new 9 retaliation claim. (See Doc. No. 23) No retaliation claim was raised in the original complaint, 10 indeed plaintiff appears to allege that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies with 11 respect to any such claim at the time this action was filed, and the court’s February 5, 2016 12 screening order granted plaintiff leave to amend his original claims—not to add new claims. 13 (Doc. No. 10 at 4–5.) As noted above, in lieu of amending his complaint, plaintiff filed the 14 pending motion to remand this action back to the state court. (Doc. No. 11.) Indeed, in his 15 motion to remand plaintiff specifically states: 16 [T]he overwhelming majority of the Defendants (sic) action include negligence, assault and battery and false imprisonment (plaintiff was intentionally kept in administrative segregation for three years)[.] A Federal Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction unless Constitutional violations are also presented. 17 18 19 (Id. at 4.)1 20 ///// 21 ///// 22 ///// 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff is advised that he must file a complaint in a separate and new action in this court if he wishes to pursue a new and different claim, including any retaliation claim, not raised in his original complaint filed in this action. 2 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The May 16, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 22) are adopted in full; 3 2. The instant action is remanded forthwith to the Fresno County Superior Court for lack 4 of subject matter jurisdiction; and 5 6 7 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 6, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.