Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01789/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01789-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIONEL FARLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1789 FCD GGH P

vs.

L. HALL, 

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On August 30, 2007, defendant

Hall removed this action from state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. On September 19, 2007,

plaintiff filed an opposition to the removal. Plaintiff argues that this action was improperly

removed because he raises state law claims only. The court construes plaintiff’s opposition as a

motion to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

28 U.S.C. § 1441 authorizes removal of any civil action brought in the state court

over which the federal district courts would have original jurisdiction. “Only...actions that

originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the

defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Absent diversity of

citizenship (not present here), federal question jurisdiction is required. Federal district courts

have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution of the United States

Case 2:07-cv-01789-KJD-PAL Document 6 Filed 10/29/07 Page 1 of 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

2

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant violated his Eighth Amendment

rights. See Complaint, p. 8: “the defendant knowingly violated the law as well as plaintiff’s

Rights and Constitutional Rights pertaining to the Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Constitutional

amendment, to be free from Cruel and Unusual Punishment.” Because the complaint contains a

claim alleging a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, this action was properly removed

from state court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s September 19,

2007, opposition to the notice of removal, construed as a motion to remand, be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: 10/29/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

far1789.rem

Case 2:07-cv-01789-KJD-PAL Document 6 Filed 10/29/07 Page 2 of 2