Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02589/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02589-0/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 

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Rion S. Price, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Mesa Police Department, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-02589-PHX-SPL (MHB) 

ORDER 

I. Procedural History 

On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff Rion S. Price, who is confined in the Maricopa 

County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se Complaint in the Superior Court of Maricopa 

County, Arizona, against Defendants Mesa Police Department, Cory McDowell, Brandon 

M. Lavin, Ashley L. Elliff, Joshua N. Gardner, Brandon Grissom, Kevin J. Jacobson, and 

Lidia P. Gonzalez. On November 24, 2014, Defendants Mesa Police Department, 

Jacobson, and Elliff (the Removing Defendants), filed a Notice of Removal (Doc. 1). 

The Court will remand this case to the Superior Court of Maricopa County. 

II. Remand

 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and “possess only that power 

authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited 

jurisdiction” and the burden of establishing jurisdiction is on the party asserting 

jurisdiction. Id. Limitations on the court’s jurisdiction must neither be disregarded nor 

Case 2:14-cv-02589-SPL--MHB Document 4 Filed 12/18/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

evaded. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). The Court is 

obligated to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate 

Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any 

time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court 

determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 

action.”). 

 “The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” 

California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). The party 

invoking the statute bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Id. “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); see California ex rel. Lockyer, 

375 F.3d at 838. The plaintiff is the master of the claim and “may avoid federal 

jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. A plaintiff, 

therefore, may choose to have a case heard in state court “by eschewing claims based on 

federal law.” Id. at 399. See also California ex rel. Lockyer, 375 F.3d at 838-39. 

 In their Notice of Removal, the Removing Defendants assert that removal is 

“based on a claim arising under federal law” because Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint 

that Defendants used excessive force when arresting him. Although Plaintiff does allege 

that Defendants used “excessive force,” he does not allege that his case arises under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, that Defendants violated his federal rights, or that his claim arises under 

federal law. 

 “Arizona courts have long recognized that a defendant has a duty to act reasonably 

in response to criminal conduct and that unreasonable, excessive use of force may result 

in liability.” Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller, 141 P.3d 754, 760 (Ariz. Ct. 

App. 2006). “An injured party may bring an action for damages arising out of allegedly 

Case 2:14-cv-02589-SPL--MHB Document 4 Filed 12/18/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

unwarranted or excessive force.” Id. at 761. The use of the phrase “excessive force,” 

without more, does not create federal jurisdiction. The Removing Defendants, therefore, 

have failed to meet their burden of establishing federal jurisdiction over this case. Thus, 

the Court will remand this case to the Superior Court of Maricopa County. 

IT IS ORDERED:

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

Arizona. 

 (2) 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 

 (3) The Clerk of Court must close this federal case. 

 Dated this 18th day of December, 2014.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-02589-SPL--MHB Document 4 Filed 12/18/14 Page 3 of 3