Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00641/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00641-0/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

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

MICHAEL BIRD,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

P. MITCHELL, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-00641-AWI-GSA-PC

[Madera County Superior Court Case No. MCV069617]

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE 

REMANDED TO MADERA COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT

(Doc. 2.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

This is a civil action filed by plaintiff Michael Bird (APlaintiff@), a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se. This action was initiated by civil Complaint filed by Plaintiff in the Madera

County Superior Court on February 13, 2015 (case #MCV069617). On April 23, 2015, 

defendants Malakkla and Mitchell (“Defendants@) removed the case to federal court by filing a 

Notice of Removal of Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1441(a). (Doc. 2.)

II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran, California. The

events at issue in the Complaint allegedly occurred at Valley State Prison (VSP) in Coalinga, 

California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there. Plaintiff names as defendants P. Mitchell

(VSP Medical Appeals Coordinator), Dr. Malakkla (Supervisor of VSP Medical Appeals), 

Case 1:15-cv-00641-AWI-GSA Document 5 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 4
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

California Correctional Health Care Services, and the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation. Plaintiff‟s factual allegations follow, in their entirety:

“On June 02, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Health Care Appeal Staff 

complaint at Valley State Prison. Plaintiff received no Log 

number nor was it prossessed (sic) by Health Care Appeals. On 

July 02, 2014, Plaintiff refiled the Staff complaint with Valley 

State Prison‟s Health Care Appeals, and was Loged (sic) on July 

17, 2014 LOG No. VSP HC 14002749. On September 11, 2014, 

Plaintiff filed Health Care Appeal Log No. VSP HC 14002962 

about the delay in Appeal Log No. VSP HC 14002749. Plaintiff 

did not receive a responce (sic) from the Second Level till 

November 26, 2014, well past the deadline given in the 

California Code of Regulations.” (Complaint, Doc. 2 at 6-7 

¶¶V.9-12.)

III. REMOVAL AND REMAND

Under 28 U.S.C. ' 1441(a), a defendant may remove from state court any action Aof 

which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.@ 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

Federal courts Ashall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 

laws, or treaties of the United States.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 1331. Removal of an action under 28 

U.S.C. ' 1441(b) depends solely on the nature of the plaintiff's complaint, and is properly 

removed only if Aa right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States 

[constitutes] an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff's cause of action.@ Gully v. First 

National Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936). The plaintiff is the master of his or her 

own complaint and is free to ignore the federal cause of action and rest the claim solely on a 

state cause of action. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(quotations and citation omitted).

Because of the ACongressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts 

on removal,@ the removal statute is strictly construed against removal.1 Shamrock Oil & Gas 

Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-109 (1941); Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 

F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). Federal jurisdiction Amust be rejected if there is any doubt as 

 

1

AAt the core of the federal judicial system is the principle that the federal courts are courts of limited

jurisdiction.@ Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979).

Case 1:15-cv-00641-AWI-GSA Document 5 Filed 04/29/15 Page 2 of 4
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

to the right of removal in the first instance.@ Id.; Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th 

Cir. 1992). Courts Amust consider whether federal jurisdiction exists, even if no objection is 

made to removal, and even if both parties stipulate to federal jurisdiction.@ Rains v. Criterion 

Systems, Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). 

Well-Pleaded Complaint

AThe presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the wellpleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 

question is presented on the face of the plaintiff=s properly pleaded complaint.@ Caterpillar, 

Inc., v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (internal quotations and citations omitted). AThe 

rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by 

exclusive reliance on state law.@ Id. 

IV. DISCUSSION

Defendants state that the Complaint for this action alleges “at page 5 of 6 that there was 

a denial of „equal protection of the law‟ and at ¶ 15 a violation of the „rights to access to the 

courts,‟” conferring original jurisdiction on the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

(Notice of Removal, Doc. 2 ¶3.) 

As stated above, removal of an action under 28 U.S.C. ' 1441(b) depends solely on the 

nature of the plaintiff's complaint. Gully, 299 U.S. at 112. The court has thoroughly reviewed 

Plaintiff=s Complaint and finds no reference to the United States Constitution, treaties, or any 

federal law. Plaintiff has titled his Complaint a “Complaint Against Violations of California 

Codes of Regulations, Title 15, Division 3.” (Doc. 2 at 4.) Nowhere in the Complaint does 

Plaintiff specifically refer to the federal Constitution or any of its Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 

1983, federal civil rights, or any other federal law in support of his claims. Plaintiff does refer 

to his “Constitutional Right of Access to the Court,” “due process,” and “equal protection of 

the Law,” which are rights protected by the United States Constitution. (Complaint, Doc. 2 at 

5:3, 7:17, 8:16.) However, California‟s Constitution also contains protections of these same 

rights. Cal. Const. art. 1 §7(a) (A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property 

without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws); Baba v. Bd. Of Sup‟rs of 

Case 1:15-cv-00641-AWI-GSA Document 5 Filed 04/29/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

City and Cnty of San Francisco, 124 Cal. App. 4th 504, 525, 21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 428, 444 (2004) 

(Access to the courts is a right guaranteed to all persons by article 1, section 3 of the California 

Constitution.) Plaintiff=s use of language reciting some elements of federal claims, without 

more, is not enough to confer federal jurisdiction. As such, the nature of Plaintiff's Complaint 

on its face creates doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance. As stated above, 

Plaintiff is the master of his own complaint and is free to rest his claims solely on state causes 

of action. See The Fair, 228 U.S. at 25. Based on these facts, the court finds that Plaintiff=s 

Complaint does not present a claim arising under federal law to warrant subject matter 

jurisdiction, and therefore the instant action does not implicate a federal interest sufficient to 

sustain removal of the action to federal court.

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The court finds that the federal court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff=s Complaint and 

the action is not removable. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be remanded to the Madera County Superior Court; and

2. The Clerk be directed to close the case and serve notice of the remand.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within thirty 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate 

Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed 

within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00641-AWI-GSA Document 5 Filed 04/29/15 Page 4 of 4