Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00573/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00573-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

CHRISTIAN A. RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KINGS, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-cv-00573 OWW SMS

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DENY

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

REMAND ACTION FOR DEFECT IN

REMOVAL PROCEDURE (DOCS. 6,

22)

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DECLINE

TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL

JURISDICTION AND TO REMAND

ACTION TO STATE COURT (DOC.

22)

Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court. 

On June 29, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and a

recommendation that Plaintiff’s motion to remand the action to

state court for a defective removal be denied, and findings and a

recommendation that the Court decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over the action and that the matter be remanded to

the Superior Court of the County of Kings. The findings and

recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to

be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the

order. Defendants filed timely objections to the findings and

Case 1:05-cv-00573-OWW -SMS Document 30 Filed 08/26/05 Page 1 of 5
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

recommendations; Plaintiff has filed a reply to Defendants’

objections and a request for judicial notice in connection with

the reply. The undersigned has considered the objections, the

reply, and the request for judicial notice and has determined

there is no need to modify the findings and recommendations based

on the points raised in the objections. Defendants correctly

argue that supplemental jurisdiction is not destroyed by

elimination of the basis for original jurisdiction. Albingia

Versicherings AG v. Schenker International Inc., 344 F.3d 931,

938-39 (9th Cir. 2003). A Plaintiff may not compel remand by

amending a complaint to eliminate the federal question upon which

removal was based. Sparta Surgical Corp., v. National Ass’n of

Security Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998). A

court’s exercise of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is

informed by the “Gibbs” factors: “judicial economy, convenience,

fairness, and comity. Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d

999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997). 

“Supplemental jurisdiction must be asserted,” unless one of

the four § 1367(c) factors applies and is invoked by the court. 

Executive Software v. United States Dist. Court, 24 F.3d 1545,

1556 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, by moving to remand the issue as

presented to the Magistrate Judge for decision on Findings and

Recommendations it is obvious that the Plaintiff is seeking to

avoid a federal forum, despite that most prison condition cases

concerning the state prison system are litigated in federal

courts, as is evidenced by the recusal of the entire Kings County

bench from this case and the thousands of state prison conditions

cases pending before the federal court. In reaching her

Case 1:05-cv-00573-OWW -SMS Document 30 Filed 08/26/05 Page 2 of 5
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

determination the Magistrate Judge noted that there are no

federal claims that remain before the Court. Neither the Court

nor the parties have expended “substantial” time or resources in

this case, except in addressing Plaintiff’s attempt to avoid the

federal forum. The parties have not engaged in discovery. The

federal claims are not entirely exclusive of elements required to

be proved under the state claims. 

The Magistrate Judge’s reasons for recommending remand are: 

(1) only state law questions remain and “it is appropriate that a

state court determine and apply the many questions of state law

that are raised in the amended complaint;” (2) the fact plaintiff

originally filed federal claims does not necessarily mean that a

later but diligent choice of a state forum constitutes

manipulative conduct;” and (3) the fact that some recusal of

“some state court judges has occurred does not ipso facto render

the case appropriate for federal court.” Without analysis, the

Magistrate Judge then concluded there was “no showing that a

state forum is unavailable or inappropriate.” 

The nature of the claims and legal issues underlying the

Plaintiff’s decedent’s suicide, implicate state and federal law

regarding immunities, state and federal rules and regulations

regarding the operations of detention facilities and penological

rules and policies under the auspices of the County of Kings. In

addition to the recusal of the Kings County bench, the potential

for concern that Kings County jurors who are taxpayers will

ultimately hear and decide the case about the substance and

quality of the County-run juvenile boot camp and detention

facility. Although federal qualified immunity and state

Case 1:05-cv-00573-OWW -SMS Document 30 Filed 08/26/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

statutory immunities are not identical, the underlying

jurisprudence is similar. Under the totality of circumstances,

the Court cannot find that the determinations made by the

Magistrate Judge supporting remand of the case are clearly

erroneous. The Court does not accept that the remand is not

manipulative. It is. The amendment of the complaint was an

intentional action to avoid federal jurisdiction.

In deciding whether to dismiss or remand, the court may

consider whether Plaintiff has engaged in “manipulative tactics”

after removal in order to get back to state court: “If the

plaintiff has attempted to manipulate forum, the court should

take his behavior into account in determining whether the balance

of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction

doctrine support a remand in the case.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v.

Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357, 108 S.Ct. 614, 622, 98 L.Ed.2d 720

(1988). The Plaintiff originally chose state court. The effort

to return to the forum of choice is not in bad faith. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708

F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), a de novo review of the matter has

been conducted. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

including the objections, the report and recommendation are

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. That the Findings and Recommendations filed June 29,

2005, are ADOPTED; and 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand the action for defective

removal is DENIED; and 

Case 1:05-cv-00573-OWW -SMS Document 30 Filed 08/26/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

3. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over this action for the reasons stated; and 

4. The action is ORDERED remanded to the Superior Court of

California for the County of Kings.

DATED: August 25, 2005.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

_____________________________

Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

rodriguez v. kings order

Case 1:05-cv-00573-OWW -SMS Document 30 Filed 08/26/05 Page 5 of 5