Burrell v. Nieves

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 3, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03693
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANGEE BURRELL, Case No. 25-cv-03693-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 9 v. STATE COURT

10 JO-ANNA NIEVES, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 5, 10 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 14 various state laws. He filed the case in Alameda County Superior Court, but defendant removed 15 the action to this Court, paid the filing fee, and filed two motion to dismiss. 16 Plaintiff seeks money damages against a private law firm he retained to file a resentencing 17 petition in Alameda County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1-2 at 5-9. He contends that the law firm 18 did not perform as expected in connection with the resentencing petition. Id. Plaintiff previously 19 filed a case in this Court with the same allegations against the same defendants. See Burrell v. 20 Nieves, et. al., Case No. 23-cv-5246 JD. After dismissing the original complaint in the earlier case 21 with leave to amend, the amended complaint was dismissed on April 29, 2024, for failure to state 22 a federal claim. Id., Dkt. No. 19. 23 Plaintiff’s federal claims have the same deficiencies as in his prior case and are dismissed 24 for the same reasons.1 Because amendments would not cure the deficiencies in plaintiff’s federal 25 claims, this case will be remanded to state court so that plaintiff may litigate in his chosen forum 26 1 Plaintiff’s new claim seeking damages under the Sixth Amendment is not tenable. See Trimble 27 v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam ) (concluding that Sixth 1 with the state law claims. See Swett v. Schenk, 792 F.2d 1447, 1450 (9th Cir. 1986) (“at is within 2 || the district court’s discretion, once the basis for removal jurisdiction is dropped, whether to hear 3 || the rest of the action or remand it to the state court from which it was removed.”). 4 The motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 5, 10) are terminated, and the hearing scheduled for 5 June 5, 2025, is vacated. This action is remanded to Alameda County Superior Court. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: June 3, 2025 8 9 JAMES TO 10 United Stftes District Judge 11 a 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28