Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01863/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01863-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS BONILLA CASTANEDA,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. DALEY et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01863-DAD-SAB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, REMANDING 

ACTION TO THE FRESNO COUNTY 

SUPERIOR COURT, AND DIRECTING 

CLERK OF COURT TO TERMINATE THIS 

ACTION

(Doc. Nos. 11, 22, 23)

Plaintiff Jesus Bonilla Castaneda is appearing pro se in this civil rights action. Plaintiff 

declined to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c). (Doc. No 8.) Accordingly, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

Defendants removed this action to this court from the Fresno County Superior Court on 

December 11, 2015. (Doc. No. 2.) By order dated February 5, 2016, plaintiff’s complaint was 

screened by the court and dismissed with leave to amend. (Doc. No. 10.) Rather than file an 

amended complaint, on March 7, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to remand this case back to state 

court. (Doc. No. 11.) On May 16, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

Case 1:15-cv-01863-DAD-SAB Document 24 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 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

2

recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion to remand the action back to the Fresno 

County Superior Court be granted. (Doc. No. 22.) Those findings and recommendations were 

served on the parties and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty 

days. Plaintiff filed objections on June 16, 2016. (Doc. No. 23.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

by proper analysis. In his objections, plaintiff contends that he now wishes to allege a new 

retaliation claim. (See Doc. No. 23) No retaliation claim was raised in the original complaint, 

indeed plaintiff appears to allege that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies with 

respect to any such claim at the time this action was filed, and the court’s February 5, 2016 

screening order granted plaintiff leave to amend his original claims—not to add new claims. 

(Doc. No. 10 at 4–5.) As noted above, in lieu of amending his complaint, plaintiff filed the 

pending motion to remand this action back to the state court. (Doc. No. 11.) Indeed, in his 

motion to remand plaintiff specifically states:

[T]he overwhelming majority of the Defendants (sic) action include 

negligence, assault and battery and false imprisonment (plaintiff 

was intentionally kept in administrative segregation for three 

years)[.] A Federal Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

unless Constitutional violations are also presented.

(Id. at 4.)1 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

 

1

Plaintiff is advised that he must file a complaint in a separate and new action in this court if he 

wishes to pursue a new and different claim, including any retaliation claim, not raised in his 

original complaint filed in this action. 

Case 1:15-cv-01863-DAD-SAB Document 24 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, 

1. The May 16, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 22) are adopted in full; 

2. The instant action is remanded forthwith to the Fresno County Superior Court for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01863-DAD-SAB Document 24 Filed 09/07/16 Page 3 of 3