Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00437/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00437-1/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 

Ammon M. Sprau, II, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

City of Surprise; Surprise Police 

Department, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-12-437-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. (Doc. 19). For the 

reasons discussed below, the Court denies this motion. 

BACKGROUND 

On January 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed his amended complaint against Defendants in 

the Maricopa County Superior Court alleging violations of his constitutional rights. 

(Doc. 1, Ex. 2). On March 1, 2012, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal invoking 

Plaintiff’s claim for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the basis for removal. 

(Doc. 1, Ex. 5). On March 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion to Amend 

Caption in Superior Court changing the caption from “2nd Amendment Rights, 4th 

Amendment Rights” to “Replevin, Refusal to Return Personal Property, Punitive & 

Exemplary Damages.” (Doc. 3, Ex. 1). Then, on March 12, 2012, Defendants filed a 

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 3). This Motion was withdrawn on May 

Case 2:12-cv-00437-GMS Document 21 Filed 06/04/12 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 

29, 2012. (Doc. 14). On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Remand. (Doc. 

19). Defendants addressed the merits of Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand in its legal 

argument section of the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 3). 

DISCUSSION 

I. Legal Standard 

 A party may remove an action from state court only if the action could have been 

brought in the district court originally. Ramirez v. Fox Television Station, Inc., 998 F.2d 

743, 747 (9th Cir. 1993). In the absence of diversity jurisdiction, a motion to remand 

turns on the presence or absence of a federal question. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[t]he district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil 

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 

II. Analysis 

 Plaintiff’s action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States by 

alleging damages for violations of his Second and Fourth Amendment rights. (Doc. 1, 

Ex. 2). A plaintiff “complaining of a violation of a constitutional right does not have a 

direct cause of action under the United States Constitution but must utilize 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983.” Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(citing Azul-Pacifico Inc. v. City of L.A., 973 F.2d 704, 705 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

 Plaintiff argues the alleged constitutional rights violations do not form “the crux” 

of his case (Doc. 19) and has amended the caption of his complaint. (Doc. 3, Ex. 1). 

However, the Court’s determination of subject matter jurisdiction is based on “the 

pleadings at the time of removal without reference to subsequent amendments.” Sparta 

Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Moreover, the face of Plaintiff’s complaint invokes federal law by seeking damages for 

alleged violations of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1, Ex. 2). Under the section entitled 

“Punitive and Exemplary Damages,” the complaint alleges, “[t]he [Defendants] willfully 

and deliberately... violated the plaintiff’s 4th Amendment rights...” and pleads 

“$4,000,000 in punitive damages, and $4,000,000 in exemplary damages...” Id. The 

Case 2:12-cv-00437-GMS Document 21 Filed 06/04/12 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 

Court therefore construes Plaintiff’s complaint to be a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand 

and will deny as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Ruling. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 19) is 

DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Ruling on 

Plaintiff’s Notice of Removal (Doc. 17) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

 Dated this 4th day of June, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00437-GMS Document 21 Filed 06/04/12 Page 3 of 3