(PC) Harper v. Kings County ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHNATHAN HARPER, Case No. 1:23-cv-00918-JLT-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. REMAND OF CASE TO STATE COURT 14 KINGS COUNTY, et al., (ECF No. 8) 15 Defendants. FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 I. Background 18 Plaintiff Johnathan Harper (“Plaintiff”) is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se in this 19 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action in Kings County 20 Superior Court on April 13, 2023. On June 16, 2023, Defendants removed the action to federal 21 court. (ECF No. 1.) 22 On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for remand of case to state court. (ECF No. 8.) 23 Defendants filed an opposition on August 3, 2023. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff did not file a reply, 24 and the deadline to do so has expired. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 25 II. Discussion 26 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove from state court any action “of 27 which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” District courts “shall 28 have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 1 United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The removal statute is strictly construed, and Defendants bear 2 the burden of establishing grounds for removal. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 3 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 4 (9th Cir. 2009). As a threshold matter, courts “must consider whether federal jurisdiction exists, 5 even if no objection is made to removal, and even if both parties stipulate to federal jurisdiction,” 6 Rains v. Criterion Systems, Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted), and “federal 7 jurisdiction ‘must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance,’” 8 Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 9 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). 10 “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded 11 complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 12 presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc., v. 13 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The rule makes 14 the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance 15 on state law.” Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392. 16 Plaintiff argues in his motion to remand that notwithstanding the labeling of the causes of 17 action, the substance of the complaint is derived from state law. (ECF No. 8, p. 2.) Plaintiff 18 further contends that “the substance of the causes of action only relate to the federal constitution 19 in the abstract,” and despite the labeling of U.S. constitutional violations, the state court lawfully 20 retains jurisdiction of a case that substantiates allegations and relief requested in state laws. (Id. 21 at 8.) Plaintiff also lists alleged violations of various state laws and local ordinances that were not 22 set forth in the complaint. (See id. at 3–6.) Finally, Plaintiff argues that the “purposes and 23 substance of the complaint is not intended to be removed to federal court to be boxed in by 24 § 1915 PLRA Screening and the extremely congested caseload of the U.S. District Courts.” (Id. 25 at 7.) 26 Defendants argue that removal is appropriate because even if Plaintiff has alleged state 27 law violations in addition to the causes of action arising under the U.S. Constitution listed in the 28 complaint, federal district courts still have subject matter jurisdiction and may exercise 1 supplemental jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s state law claims, federal district courts may grant 2 declaratory judgments, and remanding this matter to state court would allow Plaintiff to “forum 3 shop” to avoid the screening requirements of the PLRA. (ECF No. 10.) 4 In this instance, Plaintiff’s complaint, attached to the notice of removal, specifically 5 alleges the following: “FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION, U.S. Constitution Amendment 14, DUE 6 PROCESS,” (ECF No. 1-1, p. 23),1 “SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION, U.S. Constitution 7 Amendment 14, Equal Protection – Class of One,” (id. at 21), “THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION, 8 U.S. Constitution Amendment 14, Pretrial Punishment,” (id. at 19), and “FOURTH CAUSE OF 9 ACTION, U.S. Constitution Amendment 1, Freedom of Speech,” (id. at 28). Plaintiff does not 10 otherwise cite to any state law authority in support of these causes of action. (See id. at 17–29.) 11 While Plaintiff may argue that the claims arise under the federal constitution only in the abstract, 12 his failure to cite to parallel, much less exclusive, state law authority for the majority of the 13 claims in his complaint belies his contention that he intended to raise only state law claims. 14 Further, Defendants are correct that federal district courts have the authority to both grant 15 declaratory relief and to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over and to decide state law claims. 16 Therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 17 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 18 Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is entitled to remand. Accordingly, it is HEREBY 19 RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand, (ECF No. 8), be DENIED. 20 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 22 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file 23 written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 24 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 25 /// 26 /// 27 1 The Court notes for the parties that the version of the complaint attached to the notice of removal appears to have pages that are out of order, although there do not appear to be any pages missing. The Court will therefore reference 28 the complaint only by its CM/ECF page numbering. 1 within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s 2 factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 3 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: September 5, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28