Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03372/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03372-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 

ELISABETH BUCHHOLZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-3372 AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state inmate who originally filed this action in the Sacramento County 

Superior Court. ECF No. 1. The original complaint alleged claims for relief under the Eighth 

Amendment and state law. Id. at 5-30. On December 3, 2024, defendants the State of California 

and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) filed a notice of removal 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Id. at 1-3. On December 27, 2024, the court ordered the parties to 

show cause why this case should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California sitting in Fresno. ECF No. 5. That same day, plaintiff filed a first 

amended complaint (“FAC”) removing the Eighth Amendment claim, leaving only state law 

claims. ECF No. 6. On January 2, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion to remand. ECF No. 7. 

Defendants’ have filed a statement of non-opposition to remand. ECF No. 9. 

Since plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed her federal law claims, it within this court’s 

discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law 

Case 2:24-cv-03372-DJC-AC Document 10 Filed 01/13/25 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 

claims.1 Carlsbad Tech. Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 640 (2009) (statutory supplemental 

jurisdiction over state law claims remains even after dismissal of federal claims and is exercised 

at court’s discretion); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction where all claims over which it had original jurisdiction are dismissed). The court’s 

decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction should be informed by “values of 

economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Further, primary 

responsibility for developing and applying state law rests with the state courts. Therefore, when 

federal claims are eliminated before trial, district courts should usually decline to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 & n.7 (1988) 

(citation omitted); Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(“‘[I]n the usual case in which federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of 

factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law 

claims.’” (emphasis and alteration in original) (quoting Schneider v. TRW, Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 

993 (9th Cir. 1991))). 

Because plaintiff has voluntarily eliminated the federal claims in the operative complaint, 

defendants do not oppose remand, and this case is in its early stages, the undersigned 

recommends that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law 

claims and remand the case back to state court. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 357 

(“[A] district court has discretion to remand to state court a removed case involving pendent 

claims upon a proper determination that retaining jurisdiction over the case would be 

inappropriate.”). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The order to show cause (ECF No. 5) is vacated as moot. 

//// 

1

 Plaintiff’s state law claims were based upon the same incidents as his federal law claims. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (“[T]he district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other 

claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form 

part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”). 

Case 2:24-cv-03372-DJC-AC Document 10 Filed 01/13/25 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 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this 

action. 

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 

1. The court decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims 

and the motion to remand this action to state court (ECF No. 7) be GRANTED. 

2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to mail a certified copy of the order of remand to 

the clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court. 

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, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 

Cir. 1991). 

DATED: January 13, 2025 

Case 2:24-cv-03372-DJC-AC Document 10 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 3