Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02386/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02386-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

Anthony Merrick, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-2386-PHX-RCB (BSB) 

 O R D E R 

I. Procedural History

 On November 20, 2013, Defendants Hetmer, Miser, Ryan, Henderson, Stephan, 

and Linderman (“the Removing Defendants”) filed a Notice of Removal of this case from 

the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona. On November 27, 2013, Defendants 

Kidwell, Webster, and Zaborsky filed a Notice of Joinder indicating that they consented 

to and joined in removal. 

 On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the notice of removal and a 

Motion to Remand (Doc. 4). On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Amend 

Complaint and Request for Remand to the State Court” (Doc. 8) and a proposed 

Amended Complaint. 

II. Amended Complaint and Remand

 In his Motion to Amend, Plaintiff asks that the Court allow him to amend his 

complaint to “eliminate any and all federal statutes and laws,” and that the Court remand 

this action to state court. Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint raises the same claims 

Case 2:13-cv-02386-RCB--BSB Document 12 Filed 04/22/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

raised in his original Complaint but relies on entirely on state law. In the lodged First 

Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims Defendants denied him various religious materials 

and practices, denied him due process, and violated his right to equal protection of the 

laws, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 12-542 and 41-1493.01, and article 2, 

sections 12, 32, and 33, and article XX, section 1 of the Arizona Constitution. 

 On February 3, 2014, Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend 

in which they ask the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and Remand. Defendants 

argue that Plaintiff does not make any changes to his factual allegations and that simply 

removing references to federal law does not divest this Court of jurisdiction. Defendants 

argue that Plaintiff “is alleging that the Defendants violated his First Amendment rights 

and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the only vehicle to provide a remedy for the deprivation of 

‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.’” Resp. at 2. 

Where the original Complaint has been served, Rule 15(B)(2) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing 

party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when 

justice so requires.” Given the early stage of these proceedings (Defendants have not yet 

been required to file an answer), the Court will grant the Motion to Amend and direct the 

Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 

 Although “jurisdiction must be analyzed on the basis of the pleadings filed at the 

time of removal without reference to subsequent amendments” and “a plaintiff may not 

compel remand by amending a complaint to eliminate the federal question upon which 

removal was based,” Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 

1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998), “a district court has discretion to remand to state court a 

removed case involving pendent claims upon a proper determination that retaining 

jurisdiction over the case would be inappropriate.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 

U.S. 343, 357 (1988). “[W]hen the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in 

its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the 

Case 2:13-cv-02386-RCB--BSB Document 12 Filed 04/22/14 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice.” Id. at 350 (footnote 

omitted). 

Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1493.01, 

was passed in 1999 “to protect Arizona citizens’ right to exercise their religious beliefs 

free from undue governmental interference.” State v. Hardesty, 222 Ariz. 363, 365 (Ariz. 

2009). FERA’s key provision “permits the government to burden the exercise of religion 

only if the ‘application of the burden to the person is both . . . [i]n furtherance of a 

compelling governmental interest [and] [t]he least restrictive means of furthering that 

compelling governmental interest.’” Id. at 365-66; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1493.01(C). 

FERA potentially provides Plaintiff greater religious protections than those in the First 

Amendment, which requires only that the government have a reasonable justification 

related to a legitimate penological interest before restricting a prisoner-plaintiff from 

engaging in a sincerely held religious belief. Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 

2008). 

Regardless of whether Plaintiff may be attempting to manipulate the forum by 

deleting his federal-law claim, the Court, in its discretion, concludes that on balance, 

remand of the First Amended Complaint, which contains only state-law claims, “best 

serves the principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity which underlie the 

pendent jurisdiction doctrine.” Cohill, 484 U.S. at 357. Accordingly, the Court concludes 

that Plaintiff may a raise a claim for denial of religious materials and practices based 

solely Arizona constitutional and statutory rights. Thus, the Court will remand this case 

to the Maricopa County Superior Court. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) Plaintiff’s January 17, 2014 Motion Amend and Motion to Remand to State 

Court (Doc. 8) is granted. 

 (2) The Clerk of Court must file Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (attached to 

Doc. 8). 

 (3) Plaintiff’s December 6, 2013 Motion to Remand (Doc. 4) is granted. 

Case 2:13-cv-02386-RCB--BSB Document 12 Filed 04/22/14 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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) This matter is remanded to the Superior Court of Maricopa County, 

Arizona. 

 (5) The Clerk of Court must mail a certified copy of this Order to: 

Michael K. Jeanes 

Clerk of the Superior Court 

Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court 

201 West Jefferson 

Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2205 

 (6) The Clerk of Court must close this case. 

 DATED this 17th day of April, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02386-RCB--BSB Document 12 Filed 04/22/14 Page 4 of 4