1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANTHONY ALBERT BAGGET, Case No. 1:24-cv-00491-KES-EPG 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND REMAND 13 MERCED POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., (ECF No. 1) 14 Defendants. 15
16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Defendants Merced Police Department,1 Officer B. Holder, Officer Laguna, and Sergeant 18 Green removed this action from the Merced County Superior Court on April 24, 2024. (ECF No. 19 1). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. 20 After reviewing the notice of removal and the allegations in the complaint, the Court will 21 order the parties to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of 22 jurisdiction. 23 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 24 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 25 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Accordingly, “[a] federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in 26 a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes 27 1 The City of Merced states in the notice of removal that Plaintiff erroneously named the Merced Police 28 Department as a defendant. The Court need not resolve this issue now. 1 of the Colville Rsrv., 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). 2 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, defendants may remove a state court action to federal court for a 3 variety of reasons, including where Federal claims are at issue in the action. Under federal 4 question jurisdiction, federal district courts “have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “Where doubt 5 regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.” Matheson v. 6 Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). “The ‘strong 7 presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of 8 establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) 9 (citation omitted). 10 And “it is well established that ‘a court may raise the question of subject matter 11 jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on appeal.”’ Nevada 12 v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 13 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir.2002)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time 14 that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). “[I]ndeed, [the Ninth 15 Circuit has] held that the district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction.” Kelton Arms Condo. 16 Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). 17 “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 18 complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 19 presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 20 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under this rule, a plaintiff is “the plaintiff the master of the claim” and 21 the plaintiff “may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. 22 III. ANALYSIS 23 Defendants’ notice of removal explains the basis for removal and jurisdiction as follows: 24 This action is a civil action of which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331, and one which may be removed to this Court by Defendants 25 pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) and (c) in that it arises under the 26 Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiff has alleged claims for false arrest and unlawful seizure 27 implicating the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from the alleged unjustified force, detention, seizure, and punishment as set forth in his 28 1 State Court Complaint. 2 This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they arise from the same set of facts giving rise to 3 Plaintiff’s federal law claims and are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under 4 Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). 5 (ECF No. 1, p. 2). 6 Plaintiff’s complaint is contained on a California state court form. Under the cause of 7 action section, he selects general negligence, premises liability, and “other.”2 Under the other 8 category, Plaintiff lists a series of numbers that correspond to types of action contained on an 9 instruction sheet: 19 (intellectual property); 25 (professional negligence); 13 (defamation); 08 10 (civil rights); 23 ( other personal injury/property damage/wrongful death); 26 (other real property); 41 (insurance coverage claims); 42 (other complaint); and 43 (other petition). 11 While Plaintiff checks a box indicating a host of different types of causes of action, the 12 actual content on the face of the complaint appears much narrower. As for factual allegations, 13 Plaintiff states, “Surveillance of officer body cam can be heard reminding the Officer B. Holder 14 to get my wheelchair with all of my belongings on it, he said and I quote, I’ll get it, end quote. 15 Where’s my belongings.” In the relief section, he asks for his “personal belongings,” including 16 cash, electronics, and jewelry, which he describes as “lost.” Further, he selects a box on the form 17 regarding compliance with a claims statute and states, “Property law is 3 years from when 18 someone knows property is gone or fraudulently used (Merced Police Depart. won’t respond to 19 letters wrote to them.)” 20 In short, the complaint indicates that Plaintiff’s cause of action relates to the return of his 21 personal property, which the Merced Police Department has in its possession. While Plaintiff has 22 entered a code (08) for a civil rights cause of action,3 there are no allegations that appear, as 23 Defendants assert, to implicate “the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free 24 from the alleged unjustified force, detention, seizure, and punishment.” Notably, other courts 25 2 For readability, the Court has made minor alterations to quotations from the complaint, such as changing 26 capitalization and correcting misspellings, without indicating each change.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANTHONY ALBERT BAGGET, Case No. 1:24-cv-00491-KES-EPG 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND REMAND 13 MERCED POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., (ECF No. 1) 14 Defendants. 15
16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Defendants Merced Police Department,1 Officer B. Holder, Officer Laguna, and Sergeant 18 Green removed this action from the Merced County Superior Court on April 24, 2024. (ECF No. 19 1). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. 20 After reviewing the notice of removal and the allegations in the complaint, the Court will 21 order the parties to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of 22 jurisdiction. 23 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 24 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 25 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Accordingly, “[a] federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in 26 a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes 27 1 The City of Merced states in the notice of removal that Plaintiff erroneously named the Merced Police 28 Department as a defendant. The Court need not resolve this issue now. 1 of the Colville Rsrv., 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). 2 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, defendants may remove a state court action to federal court for a 3 variety of reasons, including where Federal claims are at issue in the action. Under federal 4 question jurisdiction, federal district courts “have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “Where doubt 5 regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.” Matheson v. 6 Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). “The ‘strong 7 presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of 8 establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) 9 (citation omitted). 10 And “it is well established that ‘a court may raise the question of subject matter 11 jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on appeal.”’ Nevada 12 v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 13 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir.2002)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time 14 that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). “[I]ndeed, [the Ninth 15 Circuit has] held that the district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction.” Kelton Arms Condo. 16 Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). 17 “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 18 complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 19 presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 20 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under this rule, a plaintiff is “the plaintiff the master of the claim” and 21 the plaintiff “may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. 22 III. ANALYSIS 23 Defendants’ notice of removal explains the basis for removal and jurisdiction as follows: 24 This action is a civil action of which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331, and one which may be removed to this Court by Defendants 25 pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) and (c) in that it arises under the 26 Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiff has alleged claims for false arrest and unlawful seizure 27 implicating the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from the alleged unjustified force, detention, seizure, and punishment as set forth in his 28 1 State Court Complaint. 2 This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they arise from the same set of facts giving rise to 3 Plaintiff’s federal law claims and are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under 4 Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). 5 (ECF No. 1, p. 2). 6 Plaintiff’s complaint is contained on a California state court form. Under the cause of 7 action section, he selects general negligence, premises liability, and “other.”2 Under the other 8 category, Plaintiff lists a series of numbers that correspond to types of action contained on an 9 instruction sheet: 19 (intellectual property); 25 (professional negligence); 13 (defamation); 08 10 (civil rights); 23 ( other personal injury/property damage/wrongful death); 26 (other real property); 41 (insurance coverage claims); 42 (other complaint); and 43 (other petition). 11 While Plaintiff checks a box indicating a host of different types of causes of action, the 12 actual content on the face of the complaint appears much narrower. As for factual allegations, 13 Plaintiff states, “Surveillance of officer body cam can be heard reminding the Officer B. Holder 14 to get my wheelchair with all of my belongings on it, he said and I quote, I’ll get it, end quote. 15 Where’s my belongings.” In the relief section, he asks for his “personal belongings,” including 16 cash, electronics, and jewelry, which he describes as “lost.” Further, he selects a box on the form 17 regarding compliance with a claims statute and states, “Property law is 3 years from when 18 someone knows property is gone or fraudulently used (Merced Police Depart. won’t respond to 19 letters wrote to them.)” 20 In short, the complaint indicates that Plaintiff’s cause of action relates to the return of his 21 personal property, which the Merced Police Department has in its possession. While Plaintiff has 22 entered a code (08) for a civil rights cause of action,3 there are no allegations that appear, as 23 Defendants assert, to implicate “the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free 24 from the alleged unjustified force, detention, seizure, and punishment.” Notably, other courts 25 2 For readability, the Court has made minor alterations to quotations from the complaint, such as changing 26 capitalization and correcting misspellings, without indicating each change. 3 Perhaps Defendants will point out that, on the instruction sheet, Plaintiff underlines “civil rights” and 27 “false arrest,” with “false arrest” being listed underneath “civil rights” as an example of a civil rights case. Assuming this is some indication that Plaintiff desires to bring a civil rights cause of action, the face of the 28 complaint still does not reasonably support such a claim. 1 | have concluded that a complaint’s unsupported reference to a cause of action is not sufficient to 2 | establish federal jurisdiction. See 1430 Q St. Invs. LLC v. War, No. 2:21-CV-01293-KJM-AC, 2021 WL 5240252, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021) (remanding for lack of federal jurisdiction 4 | where, “[oJn the civil cover sheet, defendant cites a prolix list of statutes but nowhere in his 5 | petition does he provide a reasonable explanation of how all of those statutes support his claim.”); 6 Holmes v. Kading Briggs, LLP, No. CV 18-04435 DDP (JCx), 2021 WL 1893015, at *2 (C.D. 7 Cal. May 11, 2021) (“Although Plaintiff’s Complaint makes no reference to any federal law, the 8 civil cover sheet does invoke 42 C.F.R. § 93.103. That regulation, however, simply defines
9 “research misconduct” for purposes of policy statements pertaining to the Public Health Service, a part of the Department of Health and Human Services. Neither Plaintiff’s Complaint nor his 8 Opposition to the instant motion provide any explanation how that federal regulation is any way pertinent to Plaintiff’s allegations about Defendant’s discovery conduct in state court. Because 2 there is no federal question at issue in this case, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”). 13 Accordingly, the Court will require the parties to show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of jurisdiction. 15 IV. ORDER 16 For the reasons given above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 17 1. By no later than May 26, 2023, the parties shall file a response to this order showing cause 18 why this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of jurisdiction.* 19 2. A failure to respond to this order to show cause may result in the dismissal of this case. 20 > IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 | Dated: _ April 26, 2024 [see ey 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 || ———— 4 While Defendants ultimately have the burden of establishing the Court’ jurisdiction, the Court would like 28 | to hear from Plaintiff regarding, what, if any, federal claims he is bringing.