Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05673/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05673-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1The Order mistakenly indicated that the Court was issuing Findings and Recommendations to remand the

case. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN RONNEL ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUERRERO,

Defendant.

 /

CV F 04 5673 OWW SMS P

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTIONS FILED

FOLLOWING REMAND OF CASE TO STATE

COURT (Docs. 38, 40.) 

Alvin Ronnel Ross (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 2, 2005, this Court remanded the case back to the State Court after having

determined that the Complaint did not allege federal claims for relief. (Doc. 37.) The Case was

terminated at that time. 

On September 13, 2005, Defendants filed Objections to the Order,1 or in the alternative,

requested reconsideration by the District Court. On February 2, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion

moving the Court for an Order on the pending matter. 

A. Authority of Magistrate Judge to Remand Case

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the District Court may designate a magistrate judge to

Case 1:04-cv-05673-OWW -SMS Document 41 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the Court except: 

a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary

judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the

defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or permit

maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss action. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). As is evidenced by the rule, an Order of Remand is not delineated as an

issue over which the Magistrate Judge has no authority. In addition, as noted by Defendants, 28

U.S.C. § 1441(c) provides: 

Whenever a separate and independent claim or cause of action within the

jurisdiction conferred by section 1331 of this title is joined with one or more

otherwise non-removable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be

removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or in its

discretion, may remand all matters in which the state law predominates. 

28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) (emphasis added.) Accordingly, contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the

ability to remand a case is clearly within the purview of a magistrate judge’s authority.

B. Motion for Reconsideration

Defendants have indicated in its Objections that it wishes the District Court to review the

Magistrate Judge’s action in ordering the case remanded to the state court. As a preliminary

matter and upon review of Defendant’s objections, the Court finds that its Order to remand

mistakenly indicated that the Court was making a Recommendation to the District Court

regarding remand. However, the Order is clear that the Magistrate Judge, pursuant to its

authority, was issuing an Order remanding the action to the state court. In any event, the District

Court is without the ability to reconsider an Order of Remand. 

It is well-settled in the Ninth Circuit that once a case has been remanded, the district court

is divested of jurisdiction and may take no further action in the case. See Seedman v. United

States Dist. Court, m, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Under the removal

statute, and subject to exceptions that are not relevant here, an order remanding an action “is not

review able on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The “or otherwise” language applies

equally to the court that issued that remand order as to any appellate court. Thus, an order of

remand “returns the case to the state courts and the federal court has no power to retrieve it.” 

Seedman, 837 F.2d at 414 (citation omitted). Moreover, once a case has been remanded, a

Case 1:04-cv-05673-OWW -SMS Document 41 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

second or successive removal on the same “grounds” as the first is generally forbidden. See St.

Paul & C. Ry. Co. v. McLean, 2 S. Ct. 498, 500 (1883) (“we are of the opinion that a party is not

entitled . . . to file a second petition for the removal [of an action] upon the same grounds [as the

first removal], where, upon the first removal by the same party, the federal court declined to

proceed and remanded the suit . . . .”). 

C. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, in light of the above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motions filed subsequent to the remand of this action to the state court are

DISREGARDED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05673-OWW -SMS Document 41 Filed 02/08/06 Page 3 of 3