(PC) Coleman v. Arnswald, No. 2:2015cv02353 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/17/2015 ORDERING the Clerk to assign a district judge to this case. IT IS RECOMMENDED that this matter be remanded to the Superior Court of Lassen County. Assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAADHI ABDUL COLEMAN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-2353 CKD P v. ORDER AND PATRICIA ARNSWALD, 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. 16 17 Defendant, an employee of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at 18 High Desert State Prison, recently removed this action from the Superior Court of Lassen County. 19 Plaintiff is an inmate housed at California State Prison, Sacramento. In his complaint, which was 20 originally filed on June 4, 2015, plaintiff alleges that while he was an inmate at High Desert, 21 defendant denied plaintiff the ability to communicate with the Superior Court of Lassen County 22 and California’s Office of the Attorney General. Defendant removed, asserting plaintiff’s claims 23 arise under the First Amendment. 24 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may generally remove a civil action brought in 25 state court to a United States district court if the district court has original jurisdiction over the 26 claims presented. United States district courts have original jurisdiction over claims arising under 27 the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 28 ///// 1 1 In his complaint, plaintiff makes no mention of the First Amendment, any other 2 Constitutional provision, or any other provision of federal law. Instead, plaintiff asserts his 3 claims arise under various provisions of California law including the California Tort Claims Act, 4 Government Code § 810 et. seq., California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 85, 86, and the California 5 Constitution. ECF No. 1 at 9 & 15. In the “Conclusion” portion of his complaint, plaintiff asks 6 “that this court deem defendant’s actions a violation of clearly established state law and grant 7 plaintiff relief.” 8 While plaintiff asserts facts which might amount to a claim arising under federal law, it is 9 certainly plaintiff’s prerogative whether to pursue a federal claim, and it is clear that plaintiff has 10 chosen not to do so.1 Furthermore, although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible 11 pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice of claims. Jones v. Community Redev. 12 Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). 13 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a district court must remand any removed case if at any point 14 it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Because plaintiff does not bring any 15 of his claims under any provision of federal law, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 16 plaintiff’s claims and removal of this action was improper. 17 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case; and 19 20 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be remanded to the Superior Court of Lassen County. 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 23 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 24 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 25 1 26 27 28 The fact that plaintiff has filed approximately 15 different actions in this court indicate that plaintiff has at least a basic understanding of the concept that claims can arise under federal and / or state laws. For example, in his amended complaint filed in 2:13-cv-1753 KJM CKD P (ECF No. 17), plaintiff asserts claims under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (id. at 1) as well as claims for “violations of clearly established state laws” (id. at 1). 2 1 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 2 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 3 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 4 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 Dated: November 17, 2015 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 cole2353.rem 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.