(PC) Guillen v. Carrillo ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCOS CASEY GUILLEN, III, Case No. 1:19-cv-00946-DAD-JDP 12 Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND BE DENIED 13 v. ECF No. 6 14 D. CARRILLO, OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Marcos Casey Guillen is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 18 rights action. The matter is before this court after being removed from Kern County Superior 19 Court. See ECF No. 1. On July 31, 2019, plaintiff moved to remand the case back to state court, 20 asserting that his complaint is based on state law and that a state court can adequately review any 21 related federal claims. See ECF No. 6. On August 6, 2019, defendant filed an opposition to the 22 motion. ECF No. 8. We recommend that plaintiff’s motion be denied. 23 ANALYSIS 24 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), all parties named in a civil action must consent to a 25 magistrate judge’s jurisdiction before that jurisdiction vests for “dispositive decisions.” Williams 26 v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017). A motion to remand is a dispositive motion. See 27 Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2015). The parties have not consented to the 28 jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, so the remand motion requires an order from a district judge. 1 When a civil action over which the federal courts have original jurisdiction is brought in 2 state court, the defendant may remove that action to federal district court. See 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1441(a). Federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule” (or 4 “Mottley rule”) which provides “that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 5 presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 6 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see also Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 7 (1908) (“[A] suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the 8 plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that 9 Constitution.”). 10 Here, even though plaintiff’s pro se complaint does not cite specific constitutional 11 provisions, his “statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon” the 12 Constitution. Mottley, 211 U.S. at 152. Plaintiff’s complaint states that he “has the right to file a 13 complaint against [defendant] Carrillo without any retaliation.” ECF No. 1 at 7. As plaintiff’s 14 motion to remand acknowledges, this claim is based on the Constitution. See ECF No. 6 at 3 15 (“Plaintiff Guillen was practicing his First Amendment right to petition the government.”). 16 If plaintiff is concerned that proceeding in federal court may mean that his related state 17 law claims will go unheard, the court notes that such concerns may be unwarranted. See 28 18 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (“[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the 19 district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to 20 claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or 21 controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”). 22 RECOMMENDATION 23 The court should deny plaintiff’s motion to remand. 24 Within fourteen (14) days of service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may 25 file written objections with the court. If plaintiff files such objections, he should do so in a 26 document captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation.” 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. ° g : —N prssann — Dated: _ August 7, 2019 4 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 No. 205 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28