Harris v. Carwithen ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL JAY HARRIS, Case No. 22-cv-01505-EMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. WITHDRAWAL REQUEST AS A MOTION TO AMEND, GRANTING 10 A CARWITHEN, MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND, AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 11 Defendant. SCREENING REQUEST AS MOOT 12 Docket Nos. 2, 8 13 14 15 Plaintiff Michael Jay Harris filed the instant action in Monterey County Superior Court. 16 See Docket No. 1-1 (“Complaint”). Mr. Harris’s Complaint includes several federal claims, and 17 Defendants timely removed the action to federal court. See Docket No. 1. 18 Mr. Harris asks the Court to allow him to “withdraw the complaint” and “remand the case 19 to” Monterey County Superior Court. Docket No. 8. As justification, Mr. Harris provides a copy 20 of an amended complaint he has filed in Monterey County Superior Court. See id., Ex. B. 21 Defendants note that Mr. Harris’s amended complaint still contains several federal claims. See 22 Docket No. 9 at 3; see also Docket No. 8, Ex. B at 16 (stating that Defendant Carwithen violated 23 “federal laws”), 17 (referring to the elements of First and Eighth Amendment claims). In 24 response, Mr. Harris represents that “his claim is that [Defendant Carwithen] was negligent in the 25 performance of his duties and caused mental injuries,” and that this action “[t]herefore . . . is more 26 appropriately suited for state court.” Docket No. 10. 27 The Court construes Mr. Harris’s request for remand and assertion that he intends to 1 motion is GRANTED. A party “may amend its pleading once as a matter of course” until 21 days 2 after a responsive pleading or dispositive motion has been filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Here, no 3 responsive pleading or dispositive motion has been filed, nor is one even due. Mr. Harris 4 therefore is entitled to amend his Complaint as a matter of course and it is deemed so amended. 5 As amended, the Complaint no longer contains any federal claims. As there is no longer a basis 6 for federal subject matter jurisdiction, this action is REMANDED to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 7 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 8 jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”) (emphasis added). 1 9 Defendants’ request for screening of the Complaint is DENIED as moot. 10 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 2 and 8. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: October 28, 2022 15 16 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 See Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Spherion Pac. Workforce, LLC, No. 16-CV-00986-JST, 2016 WL 26 4423378, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) (granting motion to amend and remanding in one order, where the plaintiff had filed a proposed amended complaint which destroyed federal subject 27 matter jurisdiction); Oettinger v. Home Depot, No. C 09-01560 CW, 2009 WL 2136764 (N.D.