(PC)Millare v. CDCR, et al.,, No. 2:2022cv01862 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 08/04/2023 ADOPTING the 8 Findings and Recommendations in full. The following claims raised in the second amended complaint are DISMISSED without leave to amend: All claims pursuant to the ADA ; all claims brought under California Civil Code § 1427; and all Eighth Amendment and negligence claims against defendant CDCR. Plaintiff's request for the court to remand his state law claims, made in his objections, is DENIED. (Spichka, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Millare v. CDCR, et al., Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MORIANO MILLARE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:22-cv-01862-DJC-KJN P v. ORDER CDCR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking 17 18 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. In this action, Plaintiff raises several claims related to the alleged confiscation of 20 21 his DME cervical pillow. On April 3, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 22 recommendations recommending dismissal of all claims pursuant to the Americans 23 with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California Civil Code § 1427. The Magistrate Judge 24 also recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and negligence claims 25 against Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). 26 The Magistrate Judge dismissed with leave to amend Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 27 and negligence claims against Defendants Reynolds, Chavarria and Woods. 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance 2 with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court 3 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 4 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 5 proper analysis. 6 In his objections, Plaintiff requests that his state law claims be remanded to 7 state court. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s request to remand his state law 8 claims is denied. 9 A federal court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. 10 § 1367. Section 1367(a) provides that “in any civil action of which the district courts 11 have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over 12 all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original 13 jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the 14 United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Under section 1367(c), however, a 15 district court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a 16 state law claim where one or more of the following circumstances exists: 17 (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, 18 (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, 19 20 21 22 23 24 (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The Ninth Circuit has held that section 1367 requires that the court exercise 25 supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to section 1367(a) unless such exercise would 26 destroy diversity jurisdiction or one of the specifically enumerated exceptions set forth 27 in section 1367(c) applies. See Executive Software N. Am., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for 28 the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 24 F.3d 1545, 1555-56 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other 2 1 grounds by California Dept. of Water Resources v. Powerex Corp., 5333 F.3d 1087 (9th 2 Cir. 2008). Courts also have supplemental jurisdiction over claims that arise from a 3 common nucleus of operative facts. See Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 815-16 (9th Cir. 4 1995) (“The operative facts for both the RICO and the state law claims are the same 5 actions described ... There was thus a common nucleus of operative facts 6 encompassing both the state and federal claims.”). Plaintiff’s state law and federal claims are based on the alleged confiscation of 7 8 plaintiff’s DME cervical pillow. Thus, a common nucleus of operative facts exists 9 between Plaintiff’s state law claims, including the state law claims the Magistrate 10 Judge recommends be dismissed, and Plaintiff’s federal claims. None of the 11 circumstances set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) permitting district courts to decline 12 supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, exist. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request 13 for the Court to remand his state law claims is denied. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 3, 2023 (ECF No. 8), are 16 ADOPTED in full; 17 2. The following claims raised in the second amended complaint are 18 DISMISSED without leave to amend: 19 a. All claims pursuant to the ADA; 20 b. All claims brought under California Civil Code § 1427; and 21 c. All Eighth Amendment and negligence claims against defendant CDCR; 3. Plaintiff’s request for the court to remand his state law claims, made in his 22 23 objections, is DENIED. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 27 Dated: August 4, 2023 Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
