Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00890/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00890-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IMHOTEP SALAT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-00890-MCE-AC 

ORDER AND FINDINGS & 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff Imhotep Salat commenced an action for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the 

Clark County Superior Court of Nevada on March 31, 2015. ECF No. 1-1 at 2–8. Defendants 

removed this action on April 24, 2015, based on federal question jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. 

 Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “the 

defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Furthermore, “jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as 

to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. A removable action can only be removed to “the 

district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is 

pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Defendants quote § 1446(a) in their notice of removal and 

conveniently omit the foregoing quote, making it seem as though removal to this court is proper. 

ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff’s complaint was not pending in a state court within the Eastern District 

of California and accordingly, removal to this court was improper. 

Case 2:15-cv-00890-MCE-AC Document 9 Filed 05/14/15 Page 1 of 2
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

 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be remanded 

to the Clark County Superior Court of Nevada. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on all 

parties within fourteen days after service of the objections. Local Rule 304(d). Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156–57 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

In addition, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that the June 17, 2015, hearing scheduled 

for defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7, is VACATED. 

DATED: May 13, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00890-MCE-AC Document 9 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 2