Benjamin Freeman v. NaphCare, et al.

Opinion

JL WO Benjamin Freeman, No. CV-26-00089-PHX-JAT (JZB) Plaintiff, v. ORDER NaphCare, et al., Defendants.

I. Procedural History On November 7, 2025, Plaintiff Benjamin Freeman, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Yuma, filed a Complaint (Doc. 1-1 at 12-22) in the Superior Court of Yuma County, Arizona, against NaphCare, Director of Nursing Marcella Meza, Nurse Sotelo, Physician’s Assistant Smalley, and Psychologist Claudia Vega. On January 7, 2026, Defendant Sotelo filed a Notice of Removal and removed the case to this Court. II. Remand “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and “possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction” and the burden of establishing jurisdiction is on the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. Limitations on the court’s jurisdiction must neither be disregarded nor evaded. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). The Court is obligated to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). “The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). The party invoking the statute bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Id. “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Federal courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see California ex rel. Lockyer, 375 F.3d at 838. Defendant Sotelo asserts that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff brings his claims, “at least in part, based on his allegation that Defendant(s) ‘retaliated against [him] for filing grievances, lawsuits in the practice of his 1st Amendment Rights.’” However, Plaintiff cited only the Arizona Constitution, Arizona statutes regarding individuals with disabilities, “dereliction,” “breach of contract,” and “retaliation” as the applicable law supporting his claims. The plaintiff is the master of his claims and “may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. A plaintiff, therefore, may choose to have a case heard in state court “by eschewing claims based on federal law.” Id. at 399. See also California ex rel. Lockyer, 375 F.3d at 838-39. Even if some of Plaintiff’s allegations may be consistent with federal causes of action, Plaintiff has explicitly designated his claims as arising solely under state law. As such, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court will remand this case to Yuma County Superior Court. ITIS ORDERED: (1) This matter is remanded to the Superior of Yuma County, Arizona. (2) The Clerk of Court must mail a certified copy of this Order to: Lynn Fazz Clerk of Court Yuma County Superior Court 250 W. 2™ Street Yuma, AZ 85364 (3) The Clerk of Court must close this federal case. Dated this 9th day of February, 2026.

James A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge