Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00348/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00348-1/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 “At the core of the federal judicial system is the principle that the federal courts are courts of limited 1

jurisdiction.” Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLINTON WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00348-OWW-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO FRESNO

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

(Doc. 1)

This is a civil action filed by plaintiff Clinton Washington (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro. The action was removed from the Fresno County Superior Court to this Court by

defendants Igbinosa and Yates (“defendants”) on March 2, 2007. 

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. Because of the “Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal

courts on removal,” the removal statute is strictly construed against removal. Shamrock Oil & Gas 1

Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-109, 61 S.Ct. 868, 872 (1941); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480,

1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Federal jurisdiction “must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of

removal in the first instance.” Duncan, 76 F.3d at 1485; Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th

Cir. 1992). Courts “must consider whether federal jurisdiction exists, even if no objection is made

Case 1:07-cv-00348-OWW -LJO Document 6 Filed 03/08/07 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

to removal, and even if both parties stipulate to federal jurisdiction.” Rains v. Criterion Systems,

Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).

In their notice of removal, defendants contend that the action is one brought pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and plaintiff alleges that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

needs. (Doc. 1, 2:3-4.) “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the

well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal

question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc., v.

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The rule makes the

plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on

state law.” Id. 

Defendant’s contention that this action arises under federal law is not supported by a review

of plaintiff’s complaint. Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1979)

(existence of federal jurisdiction determined by the complaint at the time of removal). Although

plaintiff could have brought this action in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged that

defendant violated his rights under the United States Constitution, he did not do so. Plaintiff’s

decision to file suit in state court utilizing a state civil complaint form alleging state law claims

demonstrates that plaintiff exercised his right to rely exclusively on state law. Caterpillar, Inc., 482

U.S. at 392. 

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and it shall therefore be

remanded to Fresno County Superior Court.

Accordingly, this Court hereby:

1. REMANDS this action to the Fresno County Superior Court; and

2. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to serve a copy of this order on the Fresno County

Superior Court and to serve the parties in the customary manner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00348-OWW -LJO Document 6 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2