Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01215/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01215-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY L. KING, 1:09-cv-01215-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

vs. (Doc. 5.)

BEREGOVSKAYA, et al., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO REMAND

(Doc. 3.)

Defendants.

_____________________________/

Anthony L. King (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 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 72-302. 

 On February 10, 2010, Findings and Recommendations were entered, recommending

that plaintiff's motion to remand, filed on July 21, 2009, be denied. (Doc. 5.) On March 4, 2010,

plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 6.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305,

this court has 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 proper analysis. In

the objections, plaintiff contends that he wishes to have any reference to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the

Eighth Amendment removed from his complaint and have this action remanded back to state court,

1

Case 1:09-cv-01215-AWI-GBC Document 8 Filed 03/22/10 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

containing only the state tort claims. However, in the objections plaintiff also contends the state

court has jurisdiction over his Section 1983 Federal Constitutional claims. Given the objection’s

inconsistency, the court will not strike the references to the Federal Constitution from the complaint

at this time. However, Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint that removes any

references to the Federal Constitution along with a request for remand.

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on

February 10, 2010, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff's motion to remand, filed on July 21, 2009, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01215-AWI-GBC Document 8 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 2