Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01430/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01430-2/pdf.json

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

---

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 

KENNETH HILL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J LYNCH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1430 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, originally filed this action in the Sacramento 

County Superior Court. ECF No. 1 at 6-17. After defendants removed the case, id. at 1-4, 

plaintiff objected on the ground that his allegations were based on violations of state law, ECF 

No. 5 at 1. Plaintiff was then given an opportunity to amend the complaint to remove any federal 

claims and file a motion for remand, ECF No. 6, which he did, ECF Nos. 8, 10. As a result, the 

undersigned recommended that the motion to remand be granted and that this matter be remanded 

to state court. ECF No. 13. Neither party objected to the findings and recommendations, which 

are still pending. However, plaintiff has now filed a second amended complaint in which he has 

revived his federal claims. ECF No. 15. The assertion of federal claims provides a basis for this 

court’s jurisdiction, the absence of which was the basis for the pending motion for remand. 

Although plaintiff did not seek leave to file the amended complaint, in light of his 

apparent intention to continue pursuing federal claims in this action, the recommendation that the 

Case 2:19-cv-01430-MCE-AC Document 16 Filed 01/30/20 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 

case be remanded will be vacated, the motion to remand will be summarily denied as moot, and 

the case will proceed on the second amended complaint, which will be screened in due course. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The October 22, 2019 findings and recommendations, ECF No. 13, are vacated.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand, ECF No. 8, is denied as moot.

3. This case will proceed on the second amended complaint, ECF No. 15, which will be 

screened in due course.

DATED: January 30, 2020 

Case 2:19-cv-01430-MCE-AC Document 16 Filed 01/30/20 Page 2 of 2