Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00489/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00489-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRETT ALEXANDER HALE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FELIX IGBINOSA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00489-LJO-YNP PC

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO FRESNO

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Plaintiff Brett Alexander Hale (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are five motions

from Plaintiff requesting that the Court screen his complaint or remand this action back to state

court.

This action came before this Court upon removal from the Fresno County Superior Court. 

Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this case back to state court. (Doc. #5.) The Court denied

Plaintiff’s first motion. (Doc. #11.) The Court interpreted Plaintiff’s original complaint as stating

federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth

Amendment. Plaintiff has since filed a first, and later a second amended complaint that purposefully

omitted his federal claims. Plaintiff again seeks remand arguing that his complaint only states state

law claims.

The Court notes at the outset that Plaintiff’s motions to remand are procedurally untimely. 

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) states that “[a] motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than

lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of

1

Case 1:08-cv-00489-LJO-WMW Document 25 Filed 02/11/10 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

removal under section 1446(a).” As a matter of semantics, Plaintiff’s motions should be denied as

procedurally defective. However, the Court also notes that it has discretion to exercise jurisdiction

over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). As a matter of comity with the state

court, it is preferable for Plaintiff’s state law claims to be resolved by state courts. Accordingly, this

Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and will remand this case

back to state court.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this action be REMANDED to Fresno County

Superior Court. The clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Fresno County Superior

Court and to serve the parties in the customary manner. All outstanding motions in this case are

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-00489-LJO-WMW Document 25 Filed 02/11/10 Page 2 of 2