(PC) Van Moorsel v. State of California

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 9, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03390
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEBORAH VAN MOORSEL, No. 2:24-CV-3390-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., and 15 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was removed from the Sacramento County Superior 19 Court on December 5, 2024. See ECF No. 1. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to 20 remand this matter to state court. See ECF No. 7. Defendants have filed a statement of non- 21 opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. See ECF No. 8. 22 The matter was removed to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction 23 arising from Plaintiff’s first cause of action alleging violation of her rights under the Eighth 24 Amendment. See ECF No. 1. All other claims raised in the original complaint were state law 25 claims. See id. On December 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint omitting the 26 Eighth Amendment claim and presenting only state law claims. See ECF No. 6. In Plaintiff’s 27 unopposed motion to remand, Plaintiff argues that the matter should be remanded because the 28 case no longer presents a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See ECF No. 7. 1 The Court agrees. Where, as here, federal law claims have been dismissed from a 2 || lawsuit in its early stages and only state law claims remain, the District Court may remand the 3 | matter back to state court. See Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988); see also 28 4 | U.S.C. § 1367(c). This Court has remanded other cases under similar circumstances. See 5 || Gonzalez v. Cal. Highway Patrol, 202 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 152348 at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. 2021); 6 || Crippen v Int’l Paper Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48844 at *33-34 (E.D. Cal. 2024). 7 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned orders and recommends as follows: 8 1. It is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a 9 || District Judge to this case. 10 2. It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's unopposed motion to remand, ECF 11 | No. 7, be granted and that this matter be remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court. 12 3. It is RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ request for clarification, ECF No. 13 | 3, be denied as moot. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 15 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 16 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 17 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 18 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 19 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 21 || Dated: June 6, 2025 Co 22 DENNIS M. COTA 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28