(PC) Pacheco v. Williams ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BENJI RAFAEL PACHECO, No. 2:19-cv-1932-EFB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 SCOTT WILLIAMS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action against a driver, 17 vehicle owner, and insurance company stemming from a hit and run accident that allegedly 18 injured plaintiff prior to his incarceration. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local 19 Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court dismissed the complaint with leave to 20 amend on April 7, 2020, because plaintiff had not stated facts that supported the exercise of 21 federal jurisdiction. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file an amended 22 complaint, an amended complaint, and a motion to transfer the case to state court. ECF Nos. 13- 23 15. 24 I. Screening Requirement and Standards 25 Because plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the court must dismiss the case at any time 26 if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails 27 to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune 28 defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 1 II. Screening Order and Related Motions 2 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is unnecessary as plaintiff was granted leave to 3 amend in the initial screening order. Accordingly, the court screens plaintiff’s amended 4 complaint and denies the motion for leave to amend as moot. 5 As with the original complaint, plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state facts 6 supporting the exercise of federal court jurisdiction. In apparent recognition of this fact, plaintiff 7 asks the court to transfer his case to state court. Unfortunately, the court has no authority to 8 transfer a case that was originally filed in federal court (rather than having been removed from 9 state court) but lacks federal jurisdiction to a state court. Fishman v. Mel Clayton Ford, No. CV- 10 07-0620-PHX-LOA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35943, at *9-10 (D. Ariz. May 14, 2007) (noting no 11 statutory mechanism for transferring to state court a case filed in federal court but lacking federal 12 jurisdiction). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to transfer the case must be denied. Because 13 plaintiff has been provided two opportunities to state facts that invoke this court’s jurisdiction but 14 has failed to do so, the court will recommend that the case be dismissed without leave to amend 15 (but without prejudice to plaintiff’s filing of his claims in an appropriate state court). 16 III. Order and Findings and Recommendations 17 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 18 1. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a United State District Judge to this 19 action; 20 2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 13) is DENIED as moot; and 21 3. Plaintiff’s motion to transfer the case to state court (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. 22 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 14) be 23 dismissed without leave to amend for lack of federal jurisdiction. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 27 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 28 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 2 LUV VEYVOU TRIN MVOC, th PO Ie Ye VV VI 1 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 2 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | DATED: July 6, 2020. 4 Dating : heh bie 5 EDMUND F. BRENNAN ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28