(PC) Jones v. Kern Valley State Prison ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DENO A. JONES, Case No. 1:19-cv-00827-AWI-JLT (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 11 v. KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 12 KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., (Doc. 6) 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff, Deno A. Jones, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this matter. On June 12, 16 2019, Defendant removed the action to this Court from Kern County Superior Court. (Doc. 1.) 17 Plaintiff filed objections thereto on July 8, 2019. (Doc 4.) Plaintiff states that he is pursuing state 18 tort claims, not a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s objections were construed as a motion 19 to remand and Defendants were ordered to submit an opposition or a statement of non-opposition. 20 (Doc. 6.) On August 22, 2018, Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition. (Doc. 9.) 21 Defendants explained that they construed the term “deliberate indifference” as meaning the 22 Plaintiff was pursuing a § 1983 claim. See id. However, with Plaintiff’s clarification in his 23 request to remand that he is only pursuing state tort claims, Defendants do not oppose remand. 24 See id. 25 The removal statute (28 U.S.C. ' 1441) is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. 26 Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010). It is 27 presumed that a case lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts. Id. “The strong 1 remand to state court.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009); Gaus 2 | v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). That is, federal jurisdiction over a removed 3 | case “must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” 4 | Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1107; Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. “If at any time before 5 | judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be 6 | remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Kenny v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 881 F.3d 786, 789 n.2 (9th Cir. 7 | 2018). Remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) “is mandatory, not discretionary,” Bruns v. NCUA, 8 | 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997), so district courts “must remand if [they] lacks jurisdiction.” 9 | Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). 10 Here, Plaintiff's complaint was somewhat ambiguous as to the nature of his claims. 11 | However, Plaintiff's objection clarifies that ambiguity by explaining that § 1983 claims are not 42 || pled. Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction and no basis for removal. Because there is no 13 | federal question jurisdiction, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand this 14 | matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Kelton Arms, 346 F.3d at 1192; Bruns, 122 F.3d at 1257. 15 16 ORDER 17 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 } 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), due to this Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 19 this case is REMANDED forthwith to the Kern County Superior Court; and 20 | 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Office of the Clerk 21 of the Kern County Superior Court. 22 53 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 | ee ~_-SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28