Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01711/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01711-1/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

EMELITO EXMUNDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MTA DREW, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:07-cv-01711-LJO-SMS-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

REMAND

(Doc. 7.) 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 Emelito Exmundo (“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 Kings County

Superior Court on April 9, 2007. (Case Number 07C-0220.) The action was removed to federal

court by defendants Drew, Vella, Neubarth, Adams, and Cooper and received on January 26,

2007. (Doc. 1.) On January 30, 2008, plaintiff filed a request for the court to remand this action

to the Kings County Superior Court. (Doc. 7.) Defendants have not filed an opposition or any

other response to the request. 

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

Case 1:07-cv-01711-LJO -GBC Document 8 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

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

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 Kings Superior Court because

“[t]he primary suit or issue was for premises liability which is not a federal constitutional

violation, and the force used even if it is unnecessary does not meet the requirements of the

(PLRA) Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e.” 

The court has thoroughly reviewed the complaint and finds that it properly satisfies the

requirements for federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and therefore is

properly removed. Although plaintiff’s complaint is primarily couched as claims under

California state tort law, plaintiff also alleges violations of his “rights to be free from cruel and

unusual punishments (sic) as protected by the Eighth Amendment, ‘Liberty and Property’ interest

of the Due Process and Equal Protection clause of the [F]ourteenth Amendment (including 5th

and 6th Amendments) of the United States Constitution.” (Cmp. at 14:6-10.) Plaintiff also states

in the complaint, “This action is brought under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42

U.S.C. § 12101 (‘ADA’) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794

(‘RA’).” (Cmp. at 13:22-24.) Plaintiff’s arguments that he did not bring the case primarily as a

federal action, and that one of the claims may not meet the requirements of the Prisoner

Litigation Reform Act, are not sufficient reasons 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.

Case 1:07-cv-01711-LJO -GBC Document 8 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

IV. CONCLUSION

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 22, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01711-LJO -GBC Document 8 Filed 07/23/08 Page 3 of 3