1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES JOHNSON, No. 2: 19-cv-1752 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER & FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 E. HALL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s 19 federal claims be dismissed and that the remaining state law claims be remanded to the Lassen 20 County Superior Court. 21 On September 5, 2019, defendants removed this action from Lassen County Superior 22 Court. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants requested that the court screen this action. (Id.) On September 23 13, 2019, the undersigned issued an order screening the complaint. (ECF No. 3.) 24 Named as defendants in the complaint are the California Department of Corrections and 25 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”), California Correctional Health 26 Care Services (“CCHCS”), Correctional Officers Hall, Hollandsworth, David, Speiker, Phillips, 27 Smith, Shannon, Wentz and Anderson, and Nurses Chiguaque and Rice. (ECF No. 1 at 11.) 28 //// 1 Plaintiff alleges that on June 27, 2017, plaintiff was stabbed by inmates. (Id.) Plaintiff 2 alleges that defendants Hall, Hollandsworth, David, Speiker, Phillips, Smith, Shannon, Wentz and 3 Anderson failed to sound the alarm when the stabbing occurred. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that 4 defendants Rice and/or Chiguaque failed to treat his wounds. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that when he 5 reentered the yard, plaintiff was attacked by two inmates. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that during the 6 second attack, defendants Hall, Hollandsworth, David, Speiker, Phillips, Smith, Shannon, Wentz 7 and Anderson knew that he was in danger of being attacked again. (Id.) 8 The complaint contains the following legal claims: 1) negligence against all defendants; 9 2) excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against all defendants, 10 except for defendants CCHCS, Rice and Chiguaque; 3) violation of the Bane Act against all 11 defendants, except for defendants CCHCS, Rice and Chiguaque; and 4) battery against all 12 defendants, except for defendants CCHCS, Rice and Chiguaque. (Id. at 12-15.) 13 The undersigned dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendants CDCR and HDSP, 14 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because these defendants are not state actors. (ECF No. 3 15 at 4-5.) The undersigned dismissed plaintiff’s Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment claims because 16 claims brought by prisoners based on alleged excessive force committed by prison officials 17 should be brought under the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 5.) The undersigned did not address 18 plaintiff’s state law claims. The undersigned granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended 19 complaint and ordered that if plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within that time, the 20 undersigned would issue further orders. (Id. at 9.) 21 Thirty days passed from September 13, 2019, and plaintiff did not file an amended 22 complaint. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the September 13, 2019 order, the undersigned 23 recommends that plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims be dismissed. The 24 undersigned also recommends that plaintiff’s claims against defendants CDCR and HDSP, 25 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, be dismissed. 26 For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that the court decline to 27 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. 28 //// 1 Federal courts have the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all claims 2 that are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of 3 the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1367(a). Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts may decline to 5 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if: (1) it raises a novel or complex issue of state 6 law; (2) it substantially predominates over the claim(s) over which the court has original 7 jurisdiction; (3) the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction; or 8 (4) there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 9 “While discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is 10 triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by the Gibbs1 11 values ‘of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 12 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (citations omitted). 13 The undersigned finds that the court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state 14 law claims because they are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction 15 that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States 16 Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, because the undersigned recommends dismissal of 17 the federal claims, the undersigned recommends that the court decline to exercise supplemental 18 jurisdiction over these state law claims. The values of economy, convenience, fairness and 19 comity support this recommendation. 20 The undersigned must next consider whether to dismiss or remand the remaining state law 21 claims to the Lassen County Superior Court. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 22 351-52 (1988) (when relinquishing jurisdiction, the district court must then choose whether to 23 dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice or to remand the case to state court.) 24 When considering remand, the court may also consider whether a party engaged in 25 manipulative tactics to secure their desired forum. Id. at 357. But amendment to eliminate 26 federal claims after removal is not evidence, in itself, of manipulative tactics. Baddie v. Berkeley 27
28 1 United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966). 1 Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 1995). 2 Remand of this action is warranted because this action no longer contains federal claims. 3 In addition, plaintiff clearly desires a state forum because three of plaintiff’s four claims allege 4 violations of state law, and plaintiff has permitted dismissal of his federal claims. Finally, 5 neither this court nor the Lassen County Superior Court has put a substantial amount of work into 6 this case.2 See Molina v. Rite Aid, 2019 WL 121194 at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (remanding 7 removed action to state court after plaintiff filed amended complaint removing reference to 8 federal claims); Fletcher v. Solomon, 2006 WL 3290399 at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (“Here, plaintiffs 9 clearly desire a state forum …Neither this court nor the Superior Court has put a substantial 10 amount of work into this case.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES JOHNSON, No. 2: 19-cv-1752 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER & FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 E. HALL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s 19 federal claims be dismissed and that the remaining state law claims be remanded to the Lassen 20 County Superior Court. 21 On September 5, 2019, defendants removed this action from Lassen County Superior 22 Court. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants requested that the court screen this action. (Id.) On September 23 13, 2019, the undersigned issued an order screening the complaint. (ECF No. 3.) 24 Named as defendants in the complaint are the California Department of Corrections and 25 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”), California Correctional Health 26 Care Services (“CCHCS”), Correctional Officers Hall, Hollandsworth, David, Speiker, Phillips, 27 Smith, Shannon, Wentz and Anderson, and Nurses Chiguaque and Rice. (ECF No. 1 at 11.) 28 //// 1 Plaintiff alleges that on June 27, 2017, plaintiff was stabbed by inmates. (Id.) Plaintiff 2 alleges that defendants Hall, Hollandsworth, David, Speiker, Phillips, Smith, Shannon, Wentz and 3 Anderson failed to sound the alarm when the stabbing occurred. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that 4 defendants Rice and/or Chiguaque failed to treat his wounds. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that when he 5 reentered the yard, plaintiff was attacked by two inmates. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that during the 6 second attack, defendants Hall, Hollandsworth, David, Speiker, Phillips, Smith, Shannon, Wentz 7 and Anderson knew that he was in danger of being attacked again. (Id.) 8 The complaint contains the following legal claims: 1) negligence against all defendants; 9 2) excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against all defendants, 10 except for defendants CCHCS, Rice and Chiguaque; 3) violation of the Bane Act against all 11 defendants, except for defendants CCHCS, Rice and Chiguaque; and 4) battery against all 12 defendants, except for defendants CCHCS, Rice and Chiguaque. (Id. at 12-15.) 13 The undersigned dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendants CDCR and HDSP, 14 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because these defendants are not state actors. (ECF No. 3 15 at 4-5.) The undersigned dismissed plaintiff’s Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment claims because 16 claims brought by prisoners based on alleged excessive force committed by prison officials 17 should be brought under the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 5.) The undersigned did not address 18 plaintiff’s state law claims. The undersigned granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended 19 complaint and ordered that if plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within that time, the 20 undersigned would issue further orders. (Id. at 9.) 21 Thirty days passed from September 13, 2019, and plaintiff did not file an amended 22 complaint. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the September 13, 2019 order, the undersigned 23 recommends that plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims be dismissed. The 24 undersigned also recommends that plaintiff’s claims against defendants CDCR and HDSP, 25 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, be dismissed. 26 For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that the court decline to 27 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. 28 //// 1 Federal courts have the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all claims 2 that are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of 3 the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1367(a). Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts may decline to 5 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if: (1) it raises a novel or complex issue of state 6 law; (2) it substantially predominates over the claim(s) over which the court has original 7 jurisdiction; (3) the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction; or 8 (4) there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 9 “While discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is 10 triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by the Gibbs1 11 values ‘of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 12 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (citations omitted). 13 The undersigned finds that the court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state 14 law claims because they are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction 15 that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States 16 Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, because the undersigned recommends dismissal of 17 the federal claims, the undersigned recommends that the court decline to exercise supplemental 18 jurisdiction over these state law claims. The values of economy, convenience, fairness and 19 comity support this recommendation. 20 The undersigned must next consider whether to dismiss or remand the remaining state law 21 claims to the Lassen County Superior Court. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 22 351-52 (1988) (when relinquishing jurisdiction, the district court must then choose whether to 23 dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice or to remand the case to state court.) 24 When considering remand, the court may also consider whether a party engaged in 25 manipulative tactics to secure their desired forum. Id. at 357. But amendment to eliminate 26 federal claims after removal is not evidence, in itself, of manipulative tactics. Baddie v. Berkeley 27
28 1 United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966). 1 Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 1995). 2 Remand of this action is warranted because this action no longer contains federal claims. 3 In addition, plaintiff clearly desires a state forum because three of plaintiff’s four claims allege 4 violations of state law, and plaintiff has permitted dismissal of his federal claims. Finally, 5 neither this court nor the Lassen County Superior Court has put a substantial amount of work into 6 this case.2 See Molina v. Rite Aid, 2019 WL 121194 at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (remanding 7 removed action to state court after plaintiff filed amended complaint removing reference to 8 federal claims); Fletcher v. Solomon, 2006 WL 3290399 at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (“Here, plaintiffs 9 clearly desire a state forum …Neither this court nor the Superior Court has put a substantial 10 amount of work into this case. While it might be fair to not remand this action…the other 11 concerns of economy, convenience, and comity would be served by returning to state court what 12 is now at an early stage a purely state-law action.”) 13 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that this action be remanded to Lassen County 14 Superior Court. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall appoint a 16 district judge to this action; and 17 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 18 1. Plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments be 19 dismissed; 20 2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants CDCR and HDSP brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 21 § 1983 be dismissed; and 22 3. This action be remanded to the Lassen County Superior Court. 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 26 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 27 2 Plaintiff filed this action in the Lassen County Superior Court on June 25, 2019. (ECF No. 1 at 28 6.) 1 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 2 | objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 3 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 4 | appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YlIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 | Dated: October 31, 2019 ° Frese Arn 7 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 John1752.fta 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28