Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00434/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00434-3/pdf.json

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUSTAVO MCKENZIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. BANUELOS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00434 AWI DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

REMAND

[ECF No. 14]

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Gustavo McKenzie (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 25, 2014, Defendant removed this action to 

federal court. 

On March 11, 2015, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. 

On April 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint which is currently pending screening by 

the Court. 

Also on April 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for remand to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1447(c). Plaintiff requests that the action be remanded to the state court in the event that this Court 

decides that the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. Plaintiff’s request is not ripe for decision. Upon screening, the Court may or may not 

determine that the FAC fails to state a claim. In any case, the Court must first screen the FAC. 

Plaintiff is advised that in the event the Court does issue Findings and Recommendations to dismiss 

Case 1:14-cv-00434-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 06/22/15 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

27

28

2

the complaint for failure to state a claim, he may submit his request for remand in his objections.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for remand be

DENIED with leave to renew at a later date.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections must be filed 

within seven (7) days from the date of 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00434-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 06/22/15 Page 2 of 2