Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00434/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00434-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUSTAVO MCKENZIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. BANUELOS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00434 AWI DLB PC

Kings County Superior Court Case No. 

13CV0982

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND

[ECF No. 19]

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REMAND AND 

REMANDING ACTION TO KINGS 

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

[ECF No. 21]

This civil rights action was filed in Kings County Superior Court by Plaintiff Gustavo 

McKenzie, a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On March 25, 2014, Defendant removed this 

action to federal court. On March 11, 2015, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed it 

with leave to amend. On April 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. He named

Correctional Officers E. Banuelos, L. Gallardo, G. Stoll, and Charlet, Correctional Sergeant D. 

B. Hernandez, and Appeal Coordinators S. Harrison and Karen Cribbs as Defendants. Plaintiff 

alleges violations of his rights under the United States Constitution and California Constitution.

On February 24, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that 

recommended the First Amended Complaint be DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure 

to state a claim. On March 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and 

Case 1:14-cv-00434-AWI-DLB Document 23 Filed 04/05/16 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

Recommendation. Defendants did not file objections or a reply to Plaintiff’s objections.

On March 21, 2016, Plaintiff also filed a motion to remand the action to the state court in 

the event the federal complaint is dismissed for failure to state a federal claim for relief.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff 

does not state a due process claim because California provides an adequate post-deprivation 

remedy for any property deprivations. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); 

Johnson v. Bruzunetti, 553 Fed. Appx. 752 (9th Cir. 2014); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 

816-17 (9th Cir. 1994). 

With respect to Plaintiff’s motion to remand, under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may 

remove from state court any action “of which the district courts of the United States have 

original jurisdiction.” Federal courts “shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The presence 

or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded 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). “The rule makes the plaintiff the master of the 

claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law,” id., and 

existence of federal jurisdiction is determined by the complaint at the time of removal, Libhart v.

Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1979).

In this instance, Plaintiff specifically alleged claims for relief arising from the violation of 

the United States Constitution. Because Plaintiff’s complaint sets forth federal claims, 

Defendants were entitled to remove the action to this court. However, Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint fails to state any cognizable federal claims under section 1983 and based on the 

nature of the deficiencies, further leave to amend is not warranted. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 

1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. With the dismissal of all federal 

claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law 

Case 1:14-cv-00434-AWI-DLB Document 23 Filed 04/05/16 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

claims, and will remand those claims back to the Kings County Superior Court for further 

proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Foster v. Wilson, 504 F.3d 1046, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2007); 

Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Seattle Lighting Fixture Co., 345 F.3d 1140, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2003).

 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure 

to state a federal claim under Section 1983;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for remand is GRANTED; and

4. This action is REMANDED forthwith to the Kings County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00434-AWI-DLB Document 23 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 3