(PS) Gray v. City of Roseville

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00535
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY DEAN GRAY III, Case No. 2:25-cv-0535-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel, commenced this action in the Placer County 18 Superior Court, alleging that defendants violated his rights during the execution of a search 19 warrant. After plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, defendants removed the case to this 20 court. ECF No. 1. In the notice of removal, defendants state that this court has federal question 21 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the first amended complaint alleges claims for 22 violations of plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 2. 23 Plaintiff subsequently moved to remand, ECF No. 3, and to stay proceedings until resolution of 24 his motion for remand, ECF No. 7.1 Three days after defendants filed an opposition to the motion 25 to remand, the parties entered a stipulation to allow plaintiff to amend his complaint. ECF No. 26 14. Pursuant to that stipulation, plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint, which asserts 27

28 1 More recently, plaintiff filed a second motion to remand. ECF No. 11. 1 only state law claims. ECF No. 15. Because the amended complaint does not establish a basis 2 for this court’s jurisdiction, I recommend the case be sua sponte remanded and that plaintiffs’ 3 pending motions be denied as moot.2 4 A district court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand sua 5 sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of 6 establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly 7 construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th 8 Cir. 1988). If there is any doubt as to the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the court must 9 resolve those doubts in favor of remanding to state court. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 10 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 11 removal in the first instance.”). 12 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint specifically states that it “is strictly limited to state 13 law causes of action under the California Constitution, California Penal Code, and California 14 Civil Code. Plaintiff does not assert any claims under federal law.” ECF 15 at 1. After plaintiff 15 amended his complaint, defendants’ counsel filed a declaration in which he acknowledges that 16 plaintiff does not allege a federal claim and requests that this case be remanded back to state 17 court. ECF No. 17. As both parties acknowledge, the operative complaint does not present a 18 federal question, which was the basis for defendants’ removal. Accordingly, this case should be 19 remanded back to state court. See Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 25-26 20 (2025) (“When an amendment [to the complaint] excises the federal-law claims that enabled 21 removal, the federal court loses its supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims. 22 The case must therefore return to state court.”). 23 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the April 17, 2025 hearing on plaintiff’s 24 motions to remand, ECF No. 3, and to stay, ECF No. 7, is vacated. 25

2 Plaintiff filed his motion for remand prior to amending his complaint. Consequently, 26 those motions concern whether his first amended complaint provided a basis for removal rather 27 than whether the operative, second amended complaint alleges a basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Because plaintiff’s motions are directed at his earlier complaint, I recommend 28 that they be denied as moot. 1 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. This case be sue sponte REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California 3 | in and for the County of Placer. 4 2. Plaintiffs motions to remand, ECF Nos. 3 & 11, and to stay, ECF No. 7, be DENIED 5 | as moot. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 8 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 9 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 10 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 11 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 12 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 13 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 14 | 1991). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ( 1 Sy — Dated: _ April 4, 2025 Q——— 18 JEREMY D. PETERSON 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28