Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01756/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01756-0/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

STANLEY H. SOLVEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-1756-DC-JDP (P)

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brought this action against defendants in the Sacramento County

Superior Court against defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, N. 

Flores, M. Farris, S. Gates, B. George, E. McDaniel, A. Mehta, Y. Mendoza, and E. Royal. ECF 

No. 1 at 6. Defendants removed the action to this court on the basis of federal question 

jurisdiction, because plaintiff alleged violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. Id. at 

3, 6. Plaintiff then filed a motion for remand, seeking to amend his complaint and drop his 

federal claims to negate federal question jurisdiction and, separately, arguing that the removal 

was procedurally deficient. ECF No. 5. Subsequently, plaintiff conceded that he could not 

simply delete his federal claims, ECF No. 10 at 1; he continues, however, to maintain that the 

removal was procedurally deficient. For the reasons stated below, the motion to remand is 

Case 2:24-cv-01756-DC-JDP Document 17 Filed 01/15/25 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

denied. A screening order addressing plaintiff’s complaint will issue separately. 

Plaintiff argues that removal was improper because it was accomplished without 

defendant Flores, even though she had been served on June 18, 2024, three days before this case 

was removed. ECF No. 5 at 8. “All defendants must join in a removal petition with the 

exception of nominal parties.” Hewitt v. Stanton, 798 F.2d 1230, 1232 (9th Cir. 1986). Only 

defendants who have been properly served must join a petition for removal, however. See 

Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2011). And, even where a removal is 

procedurally deficient for lack of unanimity, a court may allow defendants to cure the defect by 

obtaining joinder of the missing defendants before entry of judgment. Id. at 956-57; see also 

Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc., 311 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[A] procedural defect existing 

at the time of removal but cured prior to entry of judgment does not warrant reversal and remand 

of the matter to state court.”). 

Defendants argue that defendant Flores was not properly served prior to removal. They 

point out that Flores was not served at the prison prior to the date of removal. ECF No. 8-1 at 2. 

Plaintiff, however, claims that he served Flores at California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation headquarters prior to the removal date. ECF No. 12 at 13. Defendants argue that 

service attempt was invalid and not accepted. ECF No. 14 at 5. Accordingly, I find that there is 

no procedural deficiency warranting remand. And, even if there were, I would allow defendants 

to cure it rather than remanding. I will also deny plaintiff’s motion for sanctions that argues 

defendants attempted to mislead the court, ECF No. 12; there is no evidence that they knew 

plaintiff had unsuccessfully attempted service at headquarters. Moreover, the declaration 

attached to defendants’ opposition attested only to the failure to serve Flores at the prison and, 

thus, was neither false nor intentionally misleading. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for remand, ECF No. 5, is DENIED.

2. Defendants’ request for extension of time to oppose the motion for remand, ECF 

No. 7, and plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file a reply, ECF No. 10, are both 

GRANTED.

Case 2:24-cv-01756-DC-JDP Document 17 Filed 01/15/25 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

3. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, ECF No. 12, is DENIED. 

4. A screening order addressing plaintiff’s complaint will issue separately. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2025 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-01756-DC-JDP Document 17 Filed 01/15/25 Page 3 of 3