Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00151/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00151-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TREMAINE HUNTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

YATES, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:07-cv-00151-AWI-SMS-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

REMAND

(Docs. 16, 17.) 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 Tremaine Hunter (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action in the Fresno County

Superior Court on November 29, 2006. The action was removed to federal court by the

defendants and received on January 24, 2007. (Docs. 1, 5.) On January 30, 2008 and January 31,

2008, plaintiff filed a request for the court to remand this action to the Fresno Superior Court. 

(Docs. 15. 16.) Defendants filed a response in opposition on February 5, 2008. (Doc. 17.)

II. REMOVAL

Removal of an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) depends solely on the nature of the

plaintiff's complaint, and is properly removed only if “a right or immunity created by the

Constitution or laws of the United States [constitutes] an element, and an essential one, of the

plaintiff's cause of action.” Gully v. First National Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936). 

Case 1:07-cv-00151-AWI -SMS Document 18 Filed 07/23/08 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

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. See The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty

Co., 228 U.S. 22, 25, (1913); Jones v. General Tire & Rubber Co., 541 F.2d 660, 664 (7th

Cir.1976); La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., 506 F.2d 339, 346 (3d Cir.1974), cert. denied,

421 U.S. 937 (1975). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove from state

court any action “of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 

Federal courts “shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,

laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that this action should be remanded to the Fresno Superior Court in the

interest of judicial economy because the case had already been placed on a case management

schedule at the superior court when defendants removed the case. Defendants argue that this

action properly satisfies the requirements for federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 and therefore was properly removed. Although plaintiff’s original complaint was

primarily couched as claims under California state tort law, plaintiff also alleged "violation[s] of

his [rights under the ] 8th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.” (Cmp. at 4

¶4.) Therefore, the court finds that the federal court had jurisdiction over the original complaint

and the removal was proper. Plaintiff submitted his first amended complaint on a form for a civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and, as such, the amended complaint clearly presents a

federal question. (Amd. Cmp, Doc. 8.) Moreover, in his request for remand, plaintiff states that

“[t]his is a civil action filed by the plaintiff Tremaine Hunter alleging violations of State Tort

laws and the U.S. Constitution amendment 8.” (Request for Removal at p 3 ¶1.) As for

plaintiff’s argument that the case should be remanded in the interest of judicial economy, this

argument is not a sufficient reason to remand the case. As stated above, removal of an action

under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) depends solely on the nature of plaintiff’s complaint. Gully, 299 U.S.

at 112. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for remand should be denied.

///

IV. CONCLUSION

Case 1:07-cv-00151-AWI -SMS Document 18 Filed 07/23/08 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

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s request for

remand be DENIED. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00151-AWI -SMS Document 18 Filed 07/23/08 Page 3 of 3