1 Nov 08, 2024 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 10 BRYAN PAUL HERNANDEZ (also No. 2:24-CV-00380-SAB 11 known as Selene Violet Henderson), 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO REMAND 13 v. 14 15 JAY INSLEE, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff, a civilly committed detainee currently housed at the Eastern State 19 Hospital, filed a pro se Notice of Removal on November 4, 2024. ECF No. 1. 20 Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or properly seek leave to proceed in forma 21 pauperis. 22 Plaintiff asks to remove “a motion to find RCW 71.05.320(4)(c)(ii)1 23 unconstitutional” claiming “a State Supreme Court decision has rendered 24
25 1 RCW 71.05.320(4)(c)(ii) provides: “In cases under this subsection where the 26 court has made an affirmative special finding under RCW 71.05.280(3)(b), the 27 commitment shall continue for up to an additional one hundred eighty-day period 28 whenever the petition presents prima facie evidence that the person continues to 1 proceedings in the State Courts futile.” ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff attaches an “Order 2 Denying Motion to Declare Statute Unconstitutional” dated October 18, 2024, in 3 an apparent civil detention proceeding captioned, “In re the Detention of: BRYAN 4 HERNANDEZ AKA SELENE HENDERSON, Respondent[,]” in Spokane County 5 Superior Court case No. 23-6-01056-32. ECF No. 1-1. To the extent Plaintiff is 6 attempting bring this litigation to federal court rather than to properly appeal it 7 through the state appellate courts, Plaintiff may not do so. 8 REMOVAL AUTHORITY 9 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and “may not exercise 10 jurisdiction absent a statutory basis.” Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 11 Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). Also, a federal court has “an independent 12 obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no 13 party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 7, 94 (2010). Concerning 14 removed cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) states, in pertinent part: “If at any time before 15 final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 16 case shall be remanded.” See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court 17 determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must 18 dismiss the action.”). 19 suffer from a behavioral health disorder or developmental disability that results in 20 a substantial likelihood of committing acts similar to the charged criminal 21 behavior, unless the person presents proof through an admissible expert opinion 22 that the person's condition has so changed such that the behavioral health disorder 23 or developmental disability no longer presents a substantial likelihood of the 24 person committing acts similar to the charged criminal behavior. The initial or 25 additional commitment period may include transfer to a specialized program of 26 intensive support and treatment, which may be initiated prior to or after discharge 27 from the state hospital[.]” 28 1 Removal statutes are strictly construed. See Moore-Thomas v. Alaska 2 Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). Section 1441(a) provides: 3 Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil 4 action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United 5 States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or 6 the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district 7 and division embracing the place where such action is pending. 8 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (italics added). Likewise, Section 1446(a) states: 9 A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action from a 10 State court shall file in the district court of the United States for the 11 district and division within which such action is pending a notice of 12 removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil 13 Procedure and containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for 14 removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders 15 served upon such defendant or defendants in such action. 16 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (italics added). 17 This statutory language reveals that only defendants have the right to remove 18 an action from State court. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 19 104–09 (1941) (concluding that Congress intended to limit the right to remove an 20 action to defendants only and that a suit containing a counterclaim is not 21 removable by a plaintiff); In re Walker, 375 F.2d 678, 678 (9th Cir. 1967) (per 22 curiam) (“No right exists in favor of a person who, as plaintiff, has filed an action 23 in state court, to cause the removal of such action to a federal court.”); In re 24 Hartford Litig. Cases, 642 F. App'x 733, 736 (9th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (“The 25 [appellants] were plaintiffs in the state court, and therefore cannot use the removal 26 statutes they invoke.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1443, 1446). 27 The restriction to defendants of the right to remove a case is jurisdictional. 28 See Shamrock, 313 U.S. at 107 (stating that the restriction to defendants of the 1 right of removal “indicat[es] the Congressional purpose to narrow the federal 2 jurisdiction on removal”); see also In re Walker, 375 F.3d at 678 (affirming the 3 district court's holding that it was without jurisdiction because the plaintiff did not 4 have the right to remove its own case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, 1443, 1446). 5 Furthermore, the civil commitment of those with behavioral health disorders 6 is a concern traditionally left to the states. See Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 7 736 (1972) (“The States have traditionally exercised broad power to commit 8 persons found to be mentally ill.”); Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 426 (1979) 9 (a “state has a legitimate interest under its parens patriae powers in providing care 10 to its citizens who are unable because of emotional disorders to care for 11 themselves; the state also has authority under its police power to protect the 12 community from the dangerous tendencies of some who are mentally ill.”); Kansas 13 v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 363 (1997) (stating that “tak[ing] measures to restrict 14 the freedom of the dangerously mentally ill” is a “legitimate nonpunitive 15 governmental objective” of a state).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 Nov 08, 2024 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 10 BRYAN PAUL HERNANDEZ (also No. 2:24-CV-00380-SAB 11 known as Selene Violet Henderson), 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO REMAND 13 v. 14 15 JAY INSLEE, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff, a civilly committed detainee currently housed at the Eastern State 19 Hospital, filed a pro se Notice of Removal on November 4, 2024. ECF No. 1. 20 Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or properly seek leave to proceed in forma 21 pauperis. 22 Plaintiff asks to remove “a motion to find RCW 71.05.320(4)(c)(ii)1 23 unconstitutional” claiming “a State Supreme Court decision has rendered 24
25 1 RCW 71.05.320(4)(c)(ii) provides: “In cases under this subsection where the 26 court has made an affirmative special finding under RCW 71.05.280(3)(b), the 27 commitment shall continue for up to an additional one hundred eighty-day period 28 whenever the petition presents prima facie evidence that the person continues to 1 proceedings in the State Courts futile.” ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff attaches an “Order 2 Denying Motion to Declare Statute Unconstitutional” dated October 18, 2024, in 3 an apparent civil detention proceeding captioned, “In re the Detention of: BRYAN 4 HERNANDEZ AKA SELENE HENDERSON, Respondent[,]” in Spokane County 5 Superior Court case No. 23-6-01056-32. ECF No. 1-1. To the extent Plaintiff is 6 attempting bring this litigation to federal court rather than to properly appeal it 7 through the state appellate courts, Plaintiff may not do so. 8 REMOVAL AUTHORITY 9 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and “may not exercise 10 jurisdiction absent a statutory basis.” Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 11 Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). Also, a federal court has “an independent 12 obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no 13 party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 7, 94 (2010). Concerning 14 removed cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) states, in pertinent part: “If at any time before 15 final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 16 case shall be remanded.” See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court 17 determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must 18 dismiss the action.”). 19 suffer from a behavioral health disorder or developmental disability that results in 20 a substantial likelihood of committing acts similar to the charged criminal 21 behavior, unless the person presents proof through an admissible expert opinion 22 that the person's condition has so changed such that the behavioral health disorder 23 or developmental disability no longer presents a substantial likelihood of the 24 person committing acts similar to the charged criminal behavior. The initial or 25 additional commitment period may include transfer to a specialized program of 26 intensive support and treatment, which may be initiated prior to or after discharge 27 from the state hospital[.]” 28 1 Removal statutes are strictly construed. See Moore-Thomas v. Alaska 2 Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). Section 1441(a) provides: 3 Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil 4 action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United 5 States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or 6 the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district 7 and division embracing the place where such action is pending. 8 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (italics added). Likewise, Section 1446(a) states: 9 A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action from a 10 State court shall file in the district court of the United States for the 11 district and division within which such action is pending a notice of 12 removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil 13 Procedure and containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for 14 removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders 15 served upon such defendant or defendants in such action. 16 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (italics added). 17 This statutory language reveals that only defendants have the right to remove 18 an action from State court. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 19 104–09 (1941) (concluding that Congress intended to limit the right to remove an 20 action to defendants only and that a suit containing a counterclaim is not 21 removable by a plaintiff); In re Walker, 375 F.2d 678, 678 (9th Cir. 1967) (per 22 curiam) (“No right exists in favor of a person who, as plaintiff, has filed an action 23 in state court, to cause the removal of such action to a federal court.”); In re 24 Hartford Litig. Cases, 642 F. App'x 733, 736 (9th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (“The 25 [appellants] were plaintiffs in the state court, and therefore cannot use the removal 26 statutes they invoke.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1443, 1446). 27 The restriction to defendants of the right to remove a case is jurisdictional. 28 See Shamrock, 313 U.S. at 107 (stating that the restriction to defendants of the 1 right of removal “indicat[es] the Congressional purpose to narrow the federal 2 jurisdiction on removal”); see also In re Walker, 375 F.3d at 678 (affirming the 3 district court's holding that it was without jurisdiction because the plaintiff did not 4 have the right to remove its own case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, 1443, 1446). 5 Furthermore, the civil commitment of those with behavioral health disorders 6 is a concern traditionally left to the states. See Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 7 736 (1972) (“The States have traditionally exercised broad power to commit 8 persons found to be mentally ill.”); Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 426 (1979) 9 (a “state has a legitimate interest under its parens patriae powers in providing care 10 to its citizens who are unable because of emotional disorders to care for 11 themselves; the state also has authority under its police power to protect the 12 community from the dangerous tendencies of some who are mentally ill.”); Kansas 13 v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 363 (1997) (stating that “tak[ing] measures to restrict 14 the freedom of the dangerously mentally ill” is a “legitimate nonpunitive 15 governmental objective” of a state). 16 Consequently, this Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 17 removal request concerning state court rulings issued regarding Plaintiff’s 18 detention and will direct that the case be remanded to state court pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 21 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1447(c) and 1447(d), all further proceedings 22 in this case are REMANDED to Spokane County Superior Court in the State of 23 Washington, case No. 23-6-01056-32. 24 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Clerk shall mail a certified copy 25 of this Order to Remand to the Clerk of the Court for Spokane County Superior 26 Court. 27 3. The Clerk of Court shall transmit the record in this case to the Clerk 28 of the Court for Spokane County Superior Court. 1 4. The parties shall file nothing further in this matter. Rather, the parties shall seek any further relief to which they believe they are entitled from the courts 3|| of the State of Washington. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, 5|| provide a copy to Plaintiff, and close the file in this case. DATED this 8th day of November 2024.
8 9 Sfrutley ll Fes thar 11 a ‘t= 12 Stanley A. Bastian 13 Chief United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28