(PC) Temple v. Gibson ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TROY ALEXANDER TEMPLE, No. 2:23-cv-00478-EFB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 MICHAEL GIBSON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. He commenced this civil action in the Solano County Superior Court and 18 defendants DiTomas, Osman, Austin, Green, Lal, Santos, Allison, Hurtado, Connor, Scott, 19 Martin, and Davidson (“defendants”) removed it to federal court on March 13, 2023.1 20 Defendants request that the court screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 21 dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, or which fail to state a cognizable claim. ECF 22 No. 1 at 4. As discussed below, removal of this action was proper but the court cannot conduct 23 the required screening of plaintiff’s complaint because plaintiff has not signed it. 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 1 Defendants Allison, Austin, and DiTomas were served on February 9, 2023. ECF No. 1 27 at 2. Defendants Connor, Green, Hurtado, Lal, Osman, Santos, and Scott were served on February 17, 2023. Id. Defendants Davidson and Martin were served on February 21, 2023. Id. 28 The complaint names additional defendants, but they have not been served. Id. at 3. 1 Jurisdiction 2 Except where Congress otherwise dictates, a defendant may remove to federal court “any 3 civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original 4 jurisdiction . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal courts have original jurisdiction “of all civil 5 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 6 “If a case is improperly removed, the federal court must remand the action because it has no 7 subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the case.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Department 8 of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). Federal courts have an 9 independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 10 U.S. 215 (1990). 11 Among various state law claims, plaintiff sues numerous defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12 § 1983 for violating his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 13 Constitution. Plainly, plaintiff has raised a federal claim over which this court has jurisdiction. 14 See Ultramar America, Ltd. v. Dwelle, 900 F.2d 1412, 1413-1414 (9th Cir. 1990) (federal 15 question jurisdiction exists if at least one claim in the complaint arises under federal law). This 16 court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims provided that they “are so 17 related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same 18 case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 19 Having concluded that federal question jurisdiction exists, the court turns to the screening of the 20 complaint. 21 Screening Requirement 22 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 23 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 24 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 25 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 27 ///// 28 ///// ] Here, however, the court cannot conduct the required screening of plaintiff's complaint 2 || because, as noted, plaintiff has not signed it.2 See ECF No. | at 33. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules 3 || of Civil Procedure requires that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper . . . be signed 4 | by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is 5 || unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Because plaintiff did not sign the complaint, it must be 6 || disregarded. Within thirty days, plaintiff may file a complaint that is signed. 7 Conclusion 8 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff shall filed a signed complaint within 30 days 9 || of service of this order. Failure to so comply may result in the dismissal of this action. 10 11 | Dated: June 1, 2023. tid EDMUND F. BRENNAN V2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ———— 28 | 49 ? Plaintiff also failed to sign the declaration he filed with the complaint. See ECF No. | at