(PC) Hill v. Cross ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH HILL, No. 2:19-cv-1430 MCE AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. LYNCH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, originally filed this civil rights action in 18 Sacramento County Superior Court. ECF No. 1 at 6-17. Defendants removed the case to federal 19 court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) on July 26, 2019. Id. at 1-4. Plaintiff objected to the removal on 20 the ground that his allegations were based on violations of state law. ECF No. 5 at 1. He further 21 stated that he intended to amend the complaint to remove any federal claims. Id. After reviewing 22 the complaint, the undersigned overruled plaintiff’s objections because it was clear that he had 23 alleged violations of federal law, and the removal was timely and proper. ECF No. 6. However, 24 plaintiff was given an opportunity to file an amended complaint and motion to remand. Id. 25 Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint that removes all federal claims (ECF No. 10) and a 26 motion to remand to state court (ECF No. 8). Defendants have stated that they are unopposed to 27 the case being remanded to state court based on the amended complaint’s removal of any federal 28 claims. ECF No. 12. 1 Since plaintiff’s federal claims have been removed, it is at this court’s discretion whether 2 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.1 Carlsbad Tech. 3 Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 640 (2009) (statutory supplemental jurisdiction over state law 4 claims remains even after dismissal of federal claims and is exercised at court’s discretion); 28 5 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where all 6 claims over which it had original jurisdiction are dismissed). The court’s decision whether to 7 exercise supplemental jurisdiction should be informed by “values of economy, convenience, 8 fairness, and comity.” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) 9 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Further, primary responsibility for developing 10 and applying state law rests with the state courts. Therefore, when federal claims are eliminated 11 before trial, district courts should usually decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Carnegie- 12 Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 & n.7 (1988) (citation omitted); Gini v. Las Vegas 13 Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (“‘[I]n the usual case in which federal- 14 law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to 15 exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.’” (emphasis and alteration in original) 16 (quoting Schneider v. TRW, Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 993 (9th Cir. 1991))). Because the federal claims 17 have been removed and this case is in its early stages, the court should decline to exercise 18 supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims and should instead remand the case to 19 state court. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 357 (“[A] district court has discretion to 20 remand to state court a removed case involving pendent claims upon a proper determination that 21 retaining jurisdiction over the case would be inappropriate.”). 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action to state court (ECF No. 8) be GRANTED and 24 the matter be remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court. 25 //// 26 1 Plaintiff’s state law claims were based upon the same incidents as his federal law claims. See 27 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (“[T]he district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form 28 part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”). ] 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to mail a certified copy of the order of remand to 2 || the clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 8 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 9 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 10 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 | DATED: October 22, 2019 ~ 12 ththienr—Chnp—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28