Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02416/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02416-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

 Defendants’ request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully

briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b);

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Williams, on behalf of T.W., a

minor, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Yuma School District #1; Rusty Tyndall;

Darwin Stiffler; Greg Wilkinson;

Lurinda Ward, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-2416-PHX-DGC

ORDER

This order concerns Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) and Plaintiff’s motions

for remand and costs (Docs. 6, 7). The motions have been fully briefed. Docs. 5-11.1

In February, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint in Superior Court of Arizona for Yuma

County. Doc. 1-3. On October 21, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint citing state

law claims and “violations of the plaintiff’s Fourteen Amendment[] rights.” Doc. 1-7 at 1.

Defendants removed the case to this Court on November 8, 2010 (Doc. 1), and now move

to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint in toto for failure to state a claim. Doc. 5.

Plaintiff does not substantively oppose with regard to Fourteenth Amendment claims.

Doc. 8. Plaintiff also filed motions for remand and costs, arguing that his complaint does not

Case 2:10-cv-02416-DGC Document 12 Filed 12/27/10 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

 On its last page, the complaint does quote from and cite to “420 U.S. 321,” which

is a reference to Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975), a case brought under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Doc. 1-7 at 7. This by itself, however, is insufficient to provide fair notice of a

§ 1983 claim.

- 2 -

assert federal claims and that removal therefore was not proper. Docs. 6, 7, 11. Plaintiff also

asserts that removal was not timely. Doc. 6 at 7.

The motion to remove was timely because it was brought within thirty days of

Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Docs. 1, 1-7). 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Because Plaintiff

concedes that the original complaint did not contain a federal claim (Doc. 6), Defendants did

not need to remove within thirty days of the original complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

Moreover, the case was properly removed because the amended complaint states a federal

claim on its face: violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Doc. 1-7 at 1. Because Plaintiff

has now abandoned his Fourteenth Amendment claim by disavowing and not defending it,

the Court will dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment claim. The Court further finds that

Plaintiff’s complaint does not plead a § 1983 claim.2

Having dismissed the only federal claim in this case, the Court declines the invitation

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the state law claims are not dismissed, and the case is remanded.

Plaintiff’s motion for costs is denied because removal was proper.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) is granted in part and denied in part

as stated above.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Docs. 6, 7) is granted.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for costs (Docs. 6, 7) is denied.

Case 2:10-cv-02416-DGC Document 12 Filed 12/27/10 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 -

4. The Clerk shall remand this case to the Superior Court of Arizona for Yuma

County.

DATED this 27th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02416-DGC Document 12 Filed 12/27/10 Page 3 of 3