(PC) Mitchell v. Piffer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MICHAEL MITCHELL, No. 2:18-cv-2949-WBS-EFB P 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 PIFFER, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, commenced this action in the 16 Amador County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. Defendant removed the case to this court on 17 November 9, 2018 (id.) and, on January 16, 2020, it was dismissed without leave to amend for 18 failure to state a cognizable claim. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff has since filed a pleading pointing out 19 that the court, in dismissing the federal question claims, did not address plaintiff’s state law 20 claims. That issue is addressed below, following a brief summary of the case’s procedural 21 history. 22 On September 24, 2020, over nine months after the case was closed, plaintiff moved to 23 remand this case to the superior court. ECF No. 20. On October 16, 2020, the court issued 24 proposed findings and recommendations recommending that the motion to remand be denied. 25 ECF No. 22. Plaintiff filed objections to that recommendation, arguing that the court never 26 addressed the merits of his state law claims.1 ECF No. 23 at 4; see also ECF No. 11 (Amended 27 1 Plaintiff’s argument, as clarified in his objections, essentially requests relief that is more 28 appropriately sought under Rule 60(b). 1 Complaint) at 10 & 12 (alleging a “state tort” claim and a violation of his “state protected due 2 process rights”). 3 Indeed, the recommendation for dismissal found only that there was “no cognizable 4 federal claim.” ECF No. 15 at 3 (emphasis added). But because the court recommended 5 dismissal of plaintiff’s federal claim only, it was within the court’s discretion to retain jurisdiction 6 over the remaining state law claims or remand them to the superior court. See Swett v. Schenk, 7 792 F.2d 1447, 1450 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Plute v. Roadway Package System, Inc., 141 F. 8 Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (court may remand sua sponte or on motion of a party). 9 The court did neither and must now resolve which is the appropriate disposition of the state law 10 claims. 11 The court finds that at the time of the dismissal of the federal claims, the appropriate 12 action on the state law claims would have been to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand 13 those claims. See D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Pinal Cty., No. CV-08-0999-PHX-ROS, 2009 U.S. Dist. 14 LEXIS 135182, *8 (D. Ariz. March 23, 2009) (declining supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s 15 state law claims, noting that “it would be inconvenient and unfair to dismiss and force Plaintiff to 16 re-file . . . in state court.”); Bhatt v. OWB REO LLC, No. EDCV 12-02068-VAP (SPx), 2012 U.S. 17 Dist. LEXIS 181561, *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2012) (declining supplemental jurisdictional over 18 remaining state law claims and remanding them to state court). That result can be effectuated by 19 granting relief under Rule 60(b) for the purposes of correcting the judgment to reflect that the 20 federal question claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim and that this court is declining 21 supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Plaintiff’s most recent filing in support of his 22 motion to remand implicitly request such relief. 23 Therefore, liberally construed, plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 20) is construed as a 24 timely motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure. Under these circumstances, the court finds that there is good cause for granting relief 26 from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) (“any other reason that justifies relief”). 27 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the October 16, 2020 findings and recommendations 28 (ECF No. 22) are WITHDRAWN. 1 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. Plaintiffs motion for remand (ECF No. 20) be construed as a Rule 60(b) motion for 3 relief from judgment, and so construed, be GRANTED for the purpose of remanding 4 the state law claims; 5 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to VACATE the January 16, 2020 order (ECF 6 No. 18) and judgment (ECF No. 19) and REOPEN the case for disposition as 7 follows; 8 3. Plaintiffs federal due process claim be DISMISSED without leave to amend for the 9 reasons stated in the November 20, 2019 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 10 15) and the court DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 11 remaining state law claims; and 12 4. The action bb REMANDED to the Amador County Superior Court, in the civil 13 action titled Michael Mitchell, Plaintiff, v. T. Piffer, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV- 14 10670. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 17 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 19 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 20 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 21 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 || DATED: February 11, 2021. 23 Boat, □ See i “2 2A EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28