Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02192/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02192-0/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 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Bianca Alvarez, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-2192-PHX-JAT (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 The presiding District Judge referred this matter to the undersigned for case 

management purposes. During the Rule 16 scheduling conference, counsel raised the 

issue that the Court had dismissed, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the federal claims 

and that the only basis for federal jurisdiction for the state law claims set forth in the 

Amended Complaint is the Court’s supplemental, discretionary jurisdiction. In its Order 

the Court stated that it “intends to decline the parties’ request to retain jurisdiction over 

the remaining state law claims.” (Doc. 20 at 3) Although the parties prefer the federal 

forum, they also understand that if the federal court will decline to exercise its 

supplemental jurisdiction and remand the case, it is better to know of that action at the 

outset of the case rather than midstream. The undersigned concurs and thus recommends 

as follows, 

Case 2:16-cv-02192-JAT Document 27 Filed 03/06/17 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court withdraw the reference and consider the 

issue of possible remand presently. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of his 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 6th day of March, 2017. 

Case 2:16-cv-02192-JAT Document 27 Filed 03/06/17 Page 2 of 2