Benjamin Freeman v. NaphCare, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 10, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00089
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Benjamin Freeman, No. CV-26-00089-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 NaphCare, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 I. Procedural History 16 On November 7, 2025, Plaintiff Benjamin Freeman, who is confined in the Arizona 17 State Prison Complex-Yuma, filed a Complaint (Doc. 1-1 at 12-22) in the Superior Court 18 of Yuma County, Arizona, against NaphCare, Director of Nursing Marcella Meza, Nurse 19 Sotelo, Physician’s Assistant Smalley, and Psychologist Claudia Vega. On January 7, 20 2026, Defendant Sotelo filed a Notice of Removal and removed the case to this Court. 21 II. Remand 22 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and “possess only that power 23 authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 24 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited 25 jurisdiction” and the burden of establishing jurisdiction is on the party asserting 26 jurisdiction. Id. Limitations on the court’s jurisdiction must neither be disregarded nor 27 evaded. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). The Court is 28 obligated to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate 1 Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time 2 before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 3 case shall be remanded.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time 4 that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). 5 “The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” California 6 ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). The 7 party invoking the statute bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Id. “Federal 8 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 9 instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 10 Federal courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 11 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The presence or 12 absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ 13 which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on 14 the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 15 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see California ex rel. Lockyer, 375 F.3d at 838. 16 Defendant Sotelo asserts that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because 17 Plaintiff brings his claims, “at least in part, based on his allegation that Defendant(s) 18 ‘retaliated against [him] for filing grievances, lawsuits in the practice of his 1st Amendment 19 Rights.’” However, Plaintiff cited only the Arizona Constitution, Arizona statutes 20 regarding individuals with disabilities, “dereliction,” “breach of contract,” and “retaliation” 21 as the applicable law supporting his claims. The plaintiff is the master of his claims and 22 “may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. 23 at 392. A plaintiff, therefore, may choose to have a case heard in state court “by eschewing 24 claims based on federal law.” Id. at 399. See also California ex rel. Lockyer, 375 F.3d at 25 838-39. Even if some of Plaintiff’s allegations may be consistent with federal causes of 26 action, Plaintiff has explicitly designated his claims as arising solely under state law. As 27 such, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that this Court has federal question jurisdiction 28 over Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court will remand this case to Yuma County Superior Court. 3| ITIS ORDERED: 4 (1) This matter is remanded to the Superior of Yuma County, Arizona. 5 (2) The Clerk of Court must mail a certified copy of this Order to: 6 Lynn Fazz 7 Clerk of Court Yuma County Superior Court 8 250 W. 2™ Street 9 Yuma, AZ 85364 10 (3) The Clerk of Court must close this federal case. Dated this 9th day of February, 2026. 12

14 James A. Teilborg 15 Senior United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28