Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01965/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01965-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1446nr Notice of Removal

---

1

19cv1965-JAH (LL)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONZO JOSEPH,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. MURILLO; SGT. A. HERNANDEZ,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19cv1965-JAH (LL)

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 

STATE COURT

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is an Objection to Removal by Plaintiff Alonzo Joseph 

(“Plaintiff”), an inmate currently incarcerated at California State Prison located in 

Corcoran, California, filed on October 22, 2019. Doc. No. 7. Due to Plaintiff’s pro se status, 

the Court must construe the pleading liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–

21 (1972). Therefore, the Court will treat the pleading as a Motion to Remand. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction over the complaint and, 

therefore, GRANTS the motion to remand the matter to state court for all further 

proceedings.

BACKGROUND

On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Alonzo Joseph (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in the 

Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, against Defendants Sgt. A. Hernandez 

Case 3:19-cv-01965-JAH-LL Document 12 Filed 01/16/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19cv1965-JAH (LL)

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

and Corrections Office M. Murillo. See Doc. No. 1 at 5, exhibit A. Defendant Murillo

removed the action to this Court on October 10, 2019. Doc. No. 1. Therein, Defendant 

claimed there is federal jurisdiction. Id. Specifically, Defendant Murillo claims the Civil 

Cover sheet identifies the case as “Civil Rights” and the Complaint alleges claims for 

violations of the Eighth Amendment for excessive force and failure to protect and a 

Fourteenth Amendment violation for retaliation. Doc. No. 1 at 2. Defendant also requests

the Court “screen” Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28. U.S.C. § 1915A. Id. at 3. Plaintiff 

filed an Objection to Removal on October 22, 2019, objecting to removal “because Plaintiff 

have [sic] a right to submit himself in any court.” Doc. No. 7.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. See Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of 

New York, 790 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1986). As such, it cannot reach the merits of any 

dispute until it confirms its own subject matter jurisdiction. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a 

Better Env’t., 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). “Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when 

it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and 

dismissing the cause.” Id. (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 614 (1868)). 

District courts must construe the removal statutes strictly against removal and resolve any 

uncertainty as to removability in favor of remanding the case to state court. Gaus v. Miles, 

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 

(9th Cir. 1988).

Removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. A state court action 

can only be removed if it could have originally been brought in federal court. Caterpillar, 

Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th. 

Cir. 1996). Thus, for an action to be removed on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, 

the complaint must establish either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the 

plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of substantial questions of 

federal law. Franchise Tax Board of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for 

Case 3:19-cv-01965-JAH-LL Document 12 Filed 01/16/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19cv1965-JAH (LL)

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

Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1983). Whether federal jurisdiction exists is governed 

by the well-pleaded complaint rule. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. Under this rule, the 

federal question must be “presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 

Id.; accord Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002). “[I]t 

is now settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal 

defense, including the defense of pre-emption, even if the defense is anticipated in the 

plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only 

question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393; see Wayne, 294 F.3d at 1183 

(“However, the existence of a defense based upon federal law is insufficient to support 

jurisdiction.”). Further, “[a]s the master of the complaint, a plaintiff may defeat removal 

by choosing not to plead independent federal claims.” Arco Envtl. Remediation L.L.C. v. 

Department of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000); Rains v. 

Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 344 (9th Cir. 1996); Redwood Theaters, Inc. v. Festival 

Enters. Inc., 908 F.2d 477, 479 (9th Cir. 1990).

The defendants have the burden of establishing that removal is proper and supporting 

its jurisdictional allegations with competent proof. Gaus v. Miller, 980 F.2d at 566; 

Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990). In

addition, the defendants must file a timely notice of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The 

notice of removal must be filed within 30 days after receipt of a copy of the initial pleading 

if removability can be determined from its text. Id.

B. Discussion

Defendants seek removal of this action on the grounds that Plaintiff’s Complaint 

arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint does not 

establish that a federal statute creates any of the claims found in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Furthermore, while Defendant’s cites to Plaintiff’s Civil Cover sheet as support for the 

removal, Defendant ignores that Plaintiff also indicated the causes of action are for 

negligence and intentional tort, which are state laws and not federal causes of action. See 

Doc. No. 1-2 at 5. Simply because Plaintiff alleges a violation of his civil rights does not 

Case 3:19-cv-01965-JAH-LL Document 12 Filed 01/16/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19cv1965-JAH (LL)

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

foreclose the possibility that he is seeking damages for alleged violations of his civil rights 

under California law. The “mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does 

not automatically confer federal question jurisdiction.” Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. 

Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 813 (1986). It is certainly not clear from the face of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint that he intended to seek relief under § 1983. However, Plaintiff’s Objection to 

the Removal makes clear he in fact does not intend seek relief under § 1983 and pursue 

this action in federal court. Doc. No. 7. “The plaintiff is the master of his or her own 

complaint and is free to ignore the federal cause of action and rest the claim solely on a 

state cause of action.” Garibaldi v. Lucky Food Stores, Inc., 726 F.2d 1367, 1370 (9th Cir. 

1984).

Accordingly, the mere possibility that Plaintiff could have brought a civil rights 

claim under § 1983 does not support a finding of federal jurisdiction. Based on the 

aforementioned, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Court GRANTS the motion to remand. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this action is REMANDED to the Superior Court for 

the State of California, County of San Diego, where it was originally filed and assigned 

case number 37-2019-00034482. Defendant’s request for screening pursuant to 28. U.S.C. 

§ 1915A is denied as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 16, 2020

 

_________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-01965-JAH-LL Document 12 Filed 01/16/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4