Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01862/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01862-2/pdf.json

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

MORIANO MILLARE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01862-DJC-KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking 

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

In this action, Plaintiff raises several claims related to the alleged confiscation of 

his DME cervical pillow. On April 3, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 

recommendations recommending dismissal of all claims pursuant to the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California Civil Code § 1427. The Magistrate Judge 

also recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and negligence claims 

against Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). 

The Magistrate Judge dismissed with leave to amend Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

and negligence claims against Defendants Reynolds, Chavarria and Woods.

////

Case 2:22-cv-01862-DC-CSK Document 14 Filed 08/07/23 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 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance 

with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 

proper analysis.

In his objections, Plaintiff requests that his state law claims be remanded to 

state court. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s request to remand his state law 

claims is denied.

A federal court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367. Section 1367(a) provides that “in any civil action of which the district courts 

have original jurisdiction, the 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Under section 1367(c), however, a 

district court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a 

state law claim where one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,

(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or 

claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,

(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has 

original jurisdiction, or

(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling 

reasons for declining jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that section 1367 requires that the court exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to section 1367(a) unless such exercise would 

destroy diversity jurisdiction or one of the specifically enumerated exceptions set forth 

in section 1367(c) applies. See Executive Software N. Am., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for 

the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 24 F.3d 1545, 1555-56 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other 

Case 2:22-cv-01862-DC-CSK Document 14 Filed 08/07/23 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

grounds by California Dept. of Water Resources v. Powerex Corp., 5333 F.3d 1087 (9th 

Cir. 2008). Courts also have supplemental jurisdiction over claims that arise from a 

common nucleus of operative facts. See Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 815-16 (9th Cir. 

1995) (“The operative facts for both the RICO and the state law claims are the same 

actions described ... There was thus a common nucleus of operative facts 

encompassing both the state and federal claims.”).

Plaintiff’s state law and federal claims are based on the alleged confiscation of 

plaintiff’s DME cervical pillow. Thus, a common nucleus of operative facts exists 

between Plaintiff’s state law claims, including the state law claims the Magistrate 

Judge recommends be dismissed, and Plaintiff’s federal claims. None of the 

circumstances set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) permitting district courts to decline 

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, exist. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request 

for the Court to remand his state law claims is denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 3, 2023 (ECF No. 8), are 

ADOPTED in full;

2. The following claims raised in the second amended complaint are 

DISMISSED without leave to amend:

a. All claims pursuant to the ADA;

b. All claims brought under California Civil Code § 1427; and

c. All Eighth Amendment and negligence claims against defendant CDCR;

3. Plaintiff’s request for the court to remand his state law claims, made in his 

objections, is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2023 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01862-DC-CSK Document 14 Filed 08/07/23 Page 3 of 3