Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01335/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01335-0/pdf.json

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

1 The court construes plaintiff’s motion as an ex parte

application for relief as plaintiff did not properly notice the

motion. Due to the underlying trial proceedings, already

underway but presently stayed by the superior court pending this

court’s review of plaintiff’s motion, the court finds good cause

to hear the motion on shortened time. Upon receipt of

plaintiff’s motion on July 9, 2007, the court directed defendants

to file a response thereto by close of business on July 9, 2007

(Docket #13). Plaintiff thereafter filed a reply to defendants’

opposition (Docket #16). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ALEXIS GIRALDO,

NO. CIV. S-07-1335 FCD EFB

Plaintiff,

v. REMAND ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s emergency

motion to remand this matter to the San Francisco Superior Court

(Docket #8)1 on the grounds that plaintiff’s complaint alleges

only state-law claims and lacks federal question jurisdiction on

Case 2:07-cv-01335-FCD-EFB Document 20 Filed 07/10/07 Page 1 of 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

2 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

2

its face.2

 Defendants oppose the motion, arguing removal was

proper as plaintiff seeks to apply federal standards under the

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 to her cruel and unusual punishment claim brought pursuant

to the California Constitution. Defendants assert that by this

argument which plaintiff raised for the first time in her trial

brief filed June 21, 2007, plaintiff has brought a claim

“tantamount” to a Section 1983 claim, thus providing this court

with federal question jurisdiction over plaintiff’s action.

The court summarily REMANDS this action to the San Francisco

Superior Court. Defendants’ removal is untimely. Contrary to

defendants’ suggestions, plaintiff first raised her argument

asking the state court to apply the “deliberate indifference”

standards under the Eighth Amendment to her claim under the

California Constitution in her motion for a preliminary

injunction filed March 19, 2007. (Reply, Ex. B.) Thus, even

assuming such circumstance could properly provide a basis for

removal (which it cannot), defendants’ removal filed July 9, 2007

is clearly untimely. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (requiring an action be

removed within 30 days after receipt of the first pleading in the

state action that sets forth a removable claim). Moreover,

plaintiff does not allege a federal claim for relief; rather, she

asserts a claim of cruel and unusual punishment under the

California Constitution and a state law claim of intentional

infliction of emotional distress. (Reply, Ex. A.) Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-01335-FCD-EFB Document 20 Filed 07/10/07 Page 2 of 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

3 The court notes, however, that imposition of sanctions,

as initially requested by plaintiff, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 11 would be procedurally improper under these circumstances. 

If sanctions were to be awarded, the proper vehicle is 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(c). 

3

does not allege a claim pursuant to Section 1983 or any other

federal law. (Id.) Plaintiff’s assertion of an argument that

the state court should apply federal standards to her claim under

the California Constitution does not transform her state

constitutional claim into a federal claim. See Franchise Tax

Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28

(1983) (federal courts have jurisdiction to hear only those cases

where either “federal law creates the cause of action or [t]he

plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of

a substantial question of federal law”). Neither is true in this

case.

Therefore, this case is remanded to the San Francisco 

Superior Court. Plaintiff withdrew her request for sanctions in

her reply, and as such, the court does not consider whether

imposition of sanctions would be appropriate in this case.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: July 10, 2007

Case 2:07-cv-01335-FCD-EFB Document 20 Filed 07/10/07 Page 3 of 3