1 FILED IN THE 2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Apr 27, 2022 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 EMANUEL L. FINCH, SR., No. 2:22-CV-00024-SAB 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER REMANDING CASE 11 SUSAN BILLER, 12 Defendant. 13 14 Plaintiff Emanuel L. Finch, Sr., representing himself, filed this action in 15 Spokane County Superior Court on January 21, 2022. ECF No. 1-2 at 2. Defendant 16 Susan Biller removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 17 of Washington on February 17, 2022. ECF No. 1. On March 7, 2022, Mr. Finch 18 filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Motion for Writ of Certiorari. ECF 19 Nos. 4, 5. The Court denied both motions on April 11, 2022. ECF No. 8. In its 20 Order, the Court found that Mr. Finch had implicitly stated a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 21 cause of action. Id. at 5. 22 Upon close review of the legal standard and Complaint, the Court now finds 23 Mr. Finch has not stated a claim under federal law. Accordingly, the Court lacks 24 subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the case is remanded to state court.1 25
26 1 As the parties have already had an opportunity to brief removal 27 jurisdiction, the Court declines to request further briefing on the issue. ECF Nos. 2, 28 7. 1 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 2 Mr. Finch filed his Complaint in Spokane County Superior Court on January 3 21, 2022. ECF No. 1-2. He brings this action against Ms. Biller, an Administrative 4 Program Manager (“APM”) at the Airway Heights Correctional Center, in her 5 “official and individual capacity.” Id. at 4–5. The following facts derive from Mr. 6 Finch’s Complaint. See generally id. 7 Mr. Finch is currently incarcerated at Airway Heights Correctional Center. 8 While incarcerated, he was involved in a divorce proceeding before the Spokane 9 County Superior Court. On September 28, 2021, Mr. Finch received a letter from 10 the state court scheduling a video or telephonic conference in that action. Mr. 11 Finch states that he contacted his counselor to arrange the conference, and the 12 counselor indicated that Ms. Biller could (or would) arrange the virtual hearing. 13 Ms. Biller allegedly responded that she was not allowed to set up a virtual 14 appearance for Mr. Finch. 15 Mr. Finch sent follow-up correspondence to the state court a few days later, 16 indicating that he is unable to virtually appear because Ms. Biller considered the 17 appearance to be “personal.” Id. at 6. On October 26, 2021, Mr. Finch received a 18 letter from the state court acknowledging he was unable to appear by video or 19 telephone. Mr. Finch filed a complaint with the Washington State Department of 20 Corrections regarding the incident on October 30, 2021. On December 15, 2021, 21 Mr. Finch called the state court and was informed that a default order had been 22 issued against him because he failed to appear. 23 COMPLAINT REVIEW 24 A. Legal Standard 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action from 26 state to federal court if the federal court has original subject matter jurisdiction 27 over the action. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over claims arising 28 under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Id. § 1331. In order 1 for the defendant to remove, the federal claims must appear on the face of 2 plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. Lyons v. Alaska Teamsters Emp. Serv. Corp., 3 188 F.3d 1170, 1171 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Tingey v. Pixley–Richards West, Inc., 4 953 F.2d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 1992)). Upon removal, the district court must 5 determine whether the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction. Id.; see also 6 Fed. R. Civ P. 12(h)(3); Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). 7 Relatedly, the Court has jurisdiction to raise sua sponte the issue of a 8 Complaint’s failure to state a legally sufficient claim upon which relief can be 9 granted. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986); Sparling v. 10 Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 637–38 (9th Cir. 1988). When reviewing a 11 complaint for legal sufficiency, a court takes the factual allegations in the 12 complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 13 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). On the 14 other hand, mere legal conclusions, “are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” 15 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “Dismissal can be based on the lack of 16 a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a 17 cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 699. 18 B. Discussion 19 In removing the present action to federal court, Ms. Biller indicated that she 20 construed Mr. Finch’s Complaint as asserting a constitutional claim regarding the 21 right to access courts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law negligence 22 claims. ECF No. 2 at 5–6. Mr. Finch has objected to the removal repeatedly, 23 contending that he did not intend to bring a federal cause of action or accuse Ms. 24 Biller of depriving him of any right under color of law pursuant to Section 1983. 25 ECF Nos. 9 at 6, 7 at 6–7. 26 The constitutional right of access to courts applies only to criminal habeas 27 petitions in which inmates directly or collaterally attack their convictions, or to 28 sentences and federal civil rights actions in which the inmate challenges the 1 conditions of their confinement under federal law. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 2 343, 354–55 (1996) (citing cases); Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 896 (9th Cir. 3 1995) (stating the right of access to the courts “is designed to ensure that a habeas 4 corpus petition or a [federal] civil rights complaint of a person in state custody will 5 reach a court for consideration”). 6 Although Mr. Finch’s Complaint cites First and Fourteenth Amendment 7 precedent regarding the constitutional right of access to courts, Mr. Finch has not 8 plainly brought a federal cause of action. See, e.g., ECF No. 1-2 at 11 (citing Lewis 9 v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996)). Rather, as noted in the Court’s previous Order, Mr. 10 Finch has expressly asserted state law claims. ECF No. 1-2 at 4–5, 10. Despite the 11 citations to federal law, the Court now finds Mr. Finch’s Complaint does not, on its 12 face, assert a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Lyons, 188 F.3d at 1171. 13 Mr. Finch’s filings support this interpretation of the Complaint. ECF Nos. 9 at 6, 7 14 at 6–7. 15 Even more, Mr. Finch has not brought a habeas petition or challenge to the 16 conditions of his confinement. Instead, he contends that he was improperly denied 17 access to the state courts for purposes of litigating his divorce proceeding.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 FILED IN THE 2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Apr 27, 2022 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 EMANUEL L. FINCH, SR., No. 2:22-CV-00024-SAB 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER REMANDING CASE 11 SUSAN BILLER, 12 Defendant. 13 14 Plaintiff Emanuel L. Finch, Sr., representing himself, filed this action in 15 Spokane County Superior Court on January 21, 2022. ECF No. 1-2 at 2. Defendant 16 Susan Biller removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 17 of Washington on February 17, 2022. ECF No. 1. On March 7, 2022, Mr. Finch 18 filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Motion for Writ of Certiorari. ECF 19 Nos. 4, 5. The Court denied both motions on April 11, 2022. ECF No. 8. In its 20 Order, the Court found that Mr. Finch had implicitly stated a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 21 cause of action. Id. at 5. 22 Upon close review of the legal standard and Complaint, the Court now finds 23 Mr. Finch has not stated a claim under federal law. Accordingly, the Court lacks 24 subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the case is remanded to state court.1 25
26 1 As the parties have already had an opportunity to brief removal 27 jurisdiction, the Court declines to request further briefing on the issue. ECF Nos. 2, 28 7. 1 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 2 Mr. Finch filed his Complaint in Spokane County Superior Court on January 3 21, 2022. ECF No. 1-2. He brings this action against Ms. Biller, an Administrative 4 Program Manager (“APM”) at the Airway Heights Correctional Center, in her 5 “official and individual capacity.” Id. at 4–5. The following facts derive from Mr. 6 Finch’s Complaint. See generally id. 7 Mr. Finch is currently incarcerated at Airway Heights Correctional Center. 8 While incarcerated, he was involved in a divorce proceeding before the Spokane 9 County Superior Court. On September 28, 2021, Mr. Finch received a letter from 10 the state court scheduling a video or telephonic conference in that action. Mr. 11 Finch states that he contacted his counselor to arrange the conference, and the 12 counselor indicated that Ms. Biller could (or would) arrange the virtual hearing. 13 Ms. Biller allegedly responded that she was not allowed to set up a virtual 14 appearance for Mr. Finch. 15 Mr. Finch sent follow-up correspondence to the state court a few days later, 16 indicating that he is unable to virtually appear because Ms. Biller considered the 17 appearance to be “personal.” Id. at 6. On October 26, 2021, Mr. Finch received a 18 letter from the state court acknowledging he was unable to appear by video or 19 telephone. Mr. Finch filed a complaint with the Washington State Department of 20 Corrections regarding the incident on October 30, 2021. On December 15, 2021, 21 Mr. Finch called the state court and was informed that a default order had been 22 issued against him because he failed to appear. 23 COMPLAINT REVIEW 24 A. Legal Standard 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action from 26 state to federal court if the federal court has original subject matter jurisdiction 27 over the action. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over claims arising 28 under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Id. § 1331. In order 1 for the defendant to remove, the federal claims must appear on the face of 2 plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. Lyons v. Alaska Teamsters Emp. Serv. Corp., 3 188 F.3d 1170, 1171 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Tingey v. Pixley–Richards West, Inc., 4 953 F.2d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 1992)). Upon removal, the district court must 5 determine whether the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction. Id.; see also 6 Fed. R. Civ P. 12(h)(3); Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). 7 Relatedly, the Court has jurisdiction to raise sua sponte the issue of a 8 Complaint’s failure to state a legally sufficient claim upon which relief can be 9 granted. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986); Sparling v. 10 Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 637–38 (9th Cir. 1988). When reviewing a 11 complaint for legal sufficiency, a court takes the factual allegations in the 12 complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 13 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). On the 14 other hand, mere legal conclusions, “are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” 15 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “Dismissal can be based on the lack of 16 a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a 17 cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 699. 18 B. Discussion 19 In removing the present action to federal court, Ms. Biller indicated that she 20 construed Mr. Finch’s Complaint as asserting a constitutional claim regarding the 21 right to access courts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law negligence 22 claims. ECF No. 2 at 5–6. Mr. Finch has objected to the removal repeatedly, 23 contending that he did not intend to bring a federal cause of action or accuse Ms. 24 Biller of depriving him of any right under color of law pursuant to Section 1983. 25 ECF Nos. 9 at 6, 7 at 6–7. 26 The constitutional right of access to courts applies only to criminal habeas 27 petitions in which inmates directly or collaterally attack their convictions, or to 28 sentences and federal civil rights actions in which the inmate challenges the 1 conditions of their confinement under federal law. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 2 343, 354–55 (1996) (citing cases); Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 896 (9th Cir. 3 1995) (stating the right of access to the courts “is designed to ensure that a habeas 4 corpus petition or a [federal] civil rights complaint of a person in state custody will 5 reach a court for consideration”). 6 Although Mr. Finch’s Complaint cites First and Fourteenth Amendment 7 precedent regarding the constitutional right of access to courts, Mr. Finch has not 8 plainly brought a federal cause of action. See, e.g., ECF No. 1-2 at 11 (citing Lewis 9 v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996)). Rather, as noted in the Court’s previous Order, Mr. 10 Finch has expressly asserted state law claims. ECF No. 1-2 at 4–5, 10. Despite the 11 citations to federal law, the Court now finds Mr. Finch’s Complaint does not, on its 12 face, assert a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Lyons, 188 F.3d at 1171. 13 Mr. Finch’s filings support this interpretation of the Complaint. ECF Nos. 9 at 6, 7 14 at 6–7. 15 Even more, Mr. Finch has not brought a habeas petition or challenge to the 16 conditions of his confinement. Instead, he contends that he was improperly denied 17 access to the state courts for purposes of litigating his divorce proceeding. ECF No. 18 1-2 at 5–6, 11. Taking Mr. Finch’s factual allegations as true and construing them 19 in the light most favorable to him, the facts alleged in the Complaint are 20 insufficient to state a claim for violation of his constitutional right to access courts. 21 Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 699. Due to the foregoing, Mr. Finch has not pled a question 22 of federal law over which this Court has original jurisdiction, and the matter is 23 remanded to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs Complaint is REMANDED to the Spokane Count 3|| Superior Court (former Spokane County Superior Court Case No. 22-2-00214-32). 2. The District Court Executive is directed to CLOSE the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to fil this Order, provide copies to counsel and pro se Plaintiff, and mail a certified co to the Clerk of the Spokane County Superior Court. 8 DATED this 27th day of April 2022. 9 10 11 ‘ Souler Eee Yoar 13 Stanley A. Bastian 14 Chief United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22) 23 24 25 26 27 28