Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01402/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01402-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Maurice Patterson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Maricopa County, 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-01402-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Maurice Patterson’s Motion to Amend the 

Pleading, (Doc. 14). For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants the Motion. 

 Patterson filed an action against Defendant Maricopa County (the “County”) in the 

Maricopa County Superior Court on July 1, 2013, alleging a state law negligence claim 

and violations of his federal constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, 

and Fourteenth Amendments. (Doc. 1-1 (State Court Complaint) at 17.) On July 12, the 

County removed the action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1446(b) based 

on federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 2.) 

 After removing the case to this Court, the County moved to dismiss the Complaint 

with prejudice and without leave to amend. (Doc. 11.) In response, Patterson first moved 

to amend his Complaint to remove the federal claims on July 29. (Doc. 9.) But the Court 

denied Patterson’s Motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 15.1 which required him 

to include a redlined version of the amended pleading with the Motion. (Doc. 12.) 

 Patterson again moves to amend the Complaint. (Doc. 14). The proposed 

amendments delete the federal law claims and allege additional state law claims arising 

Case 2:13-cv-01402-GMS Document 16 Filed 09/23/13 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

under the Arizona Constitution. (See Doc. 14 at 3–4.) Along with his Motion to Amend, 

Patterson requests the Court to remand the action back to state court or, in the alternative, 

allow him to voluntarily dismiss it without prejudice so that he may refile the action in 

state court. (Id. at 1.) 

 A plaintiff may amend a complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days of 

serving it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). After 21 days, a plaintiff may only amend a 

complaint with the court’s permission. The court “should freely give leave when justice 

so requires.” Id. 15(a)(2). Patterson first moved to amend within 21 days of the action’s 

removal to this Court but did not provide a redlined version of the Complaint. Because 

Patterson has not yet amended his Complaint and provides his proposed amendments 

with the current Motion, the Court will grant leave to amend. 

 The County contends that the Court had federal question jurisdiction over the 

action at the time of removal; therefore, it requests the Court to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over the state law claims and consider their merits even if the federal law 

claims are now discarded. “In determining the existence of removal jurisdiction, based 

upon a federal question, the court must look to the complaint as of the time the removal 

petition was filed. Jurisdiction is based on the complaint as originally filed and not as 

amended.” Abada v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 300 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(quoting O’Halloran v. Univ. of Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir. 1988)) (emphasis 

in original). 

 Because Patterson alleged violations of his federal constitutional rights in his 

original Complaint, the Court had jurisdiction at the time of removal. The Complaint as 

amended, however, does not state such claims. A district court may decline to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has 

original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It is also in the interest of “economy, 

convenience, fairness, and comity,” Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 1995), 

that Patterson’s state law claims arising under the Arizona Constitution be adjudicated in 

state court. 

Case 2:13-cv-01402-GMS Document 16 Filed 09/23/13 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Maurice Patterson’s Motion to 

Amend the Pleading, (Doc. 14), is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is remanded to state court. The 

Clerk of Court is directed to remand this action back to the Maricopa County Superior 

Court. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Maricopa County’s Motion to 

Dismiss, (Doc. 11), is denied as moot. 

 Dated this 23rd day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-01402-GMS Document 16 Filed 09/23/13 Page 3 of 3