Helidoro A. Silva v. City of Merced ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HELIODORO A. SILVA, No.: 1:20-cv-01612-NONE-EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSTRUING MOTION TO REMAND AS A REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY 13 v. DISMISSAL OF FEDERAL CLAIMS; 14 DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JEANNE SCHECHTER, et al., JURISDICTION OVER REMAINING STATE 15 LAW CLAIMS; AND REMANDING THE Defendants. MATTER TO STATE COURT 16 17 (Doc. Nos. 4–5) 18 Plaintiff Heliodoro A. Silva, a state prisoner, initially brought this action in the Merced 19 County Superior Court against the judge, prosecutor, detective, State of California, County of 20 Merced, and City of Merced involved in the alleged “unlawful” conviction of plaintiff for aiding 21 and abetting two murders. (Doc. No. 1, Ex. A (Compl.) ¶¶ 4–6.) Plaintiff’s complaint asserts 22 both federal and state law causes of action. (Id., Compl. at 17–18.) Accordingly, defendants 23 removed this action to this federal court in November 2020 based on federal question jurisdiction. 24 (Id. ¶ 4.) Defendants then moved to dismiss the entire complaint under Federal Rule of Civil 25 Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 4 at 1.) Plaintiff has opposed defendants’ motion to dismiss and 26 filed a motion to remand. (Doc. Nos. 5–6.) 27 In his motion to remand, plaintiff argues that defendants are “wrong when [they] said that 28 the causes of actions concern[] federal questions,” and insists that his lawsuit is based solely on state law. (Doc. No. 4 at 2) (alteration in original). The court construes plaintiff's filing as an 2 indication that, to the extent his complaint ever attempted to assert federal causes of action, he is 3 no longer interested in pursuing those claims against the named defendants. The court will 4 therefore treat the motion to remand as a request for voluntary dismissal of any federal claims 5 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A){i). 6 Because this case was removed to this court only recently, no substantial judicial resources have been expended on it. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 US 343, 350 (1988). 8 Consequently, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and will remand the matter to the Merced County Superior Court. 10 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above: 2 (1) Plaintiff's motion to remand, construed as a request for voluntary dismissal of any federal claims, (Doc. No. 5) is GRANTED; 4 (2) Any federal claims asserted in the complaint (Doc. No. 1, Ex. A) are DISMISSED; (3) The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law '6 claims; 17 (4) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED AS MOOT; '8 (5) The case is REMANDED to the Merced County Superior Court; and (6) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this matter for the “0 purposes of closure and then to close this case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ ‘ai 23 Dated: _ December 8, 2020 See 1" Sage 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28