Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00465/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00465-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The case initially was assigned to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. On

February 5, 2010, the case was reassigned to the undersigned. (Docket No. 6.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEENAN WILKINS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SHERIFF GREG AHERN, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 10-0465 MMC (PR) 

Alameda County Sup. Ct. No. RG09481845

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO SCREEN COMPLAINT;

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE

COURT; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

(Docket Nos. 3 & 8)

On October 29, 2009, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Alameda

County Jail and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil action in Alameda County

Superior Court. On February 2, 2010, defendant Sheriff Greg Ahern (“Ahern”) removed the

action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (Docket No. 2)1

 and, on February 5,

2010, filed a motion by which he requested the Court screen the complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A (Docket No. 3). Thereafter, on February 22, 2010, plaintiff filed a

motion to remand the action to state court (Docket No. 8).

Having read and considered the parties’ respective motions, the Court rules as follows.

Case 3:10-cv-00465-MMC Document 11 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DISCUSSION

A. Screening

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

48 (1988).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

In his complaint, plaintiff states he is asserting the following causes of action:

(1) “Interference with Plaintiff’s Rights with Threats, Intimidation and Coercion (Equal

Protection, Due Process, To be Free From Cruel and Unusual Punishment)”; (2) “Emotional

Distress/Mental Anguish (Extreme, Reckless, Intentional)”; (3) “Personal Injury.” (Def.’s

Notice Remov. Ex. A at 7:25-28.)

Plaintiff’s causes of action are, in each instance, grounded in plaintiff’s allegations

that Ahern and Doe defendant sheriff’s deputies (1) have endangered plaintiff’s safety and

exacerbated plaintiff’s paranoid schizophrenia by requiring him to be transported in busses

and vans without access to seatbelts, and (2) endangered plaintiff’s physical health and

exacerbated his mental health condition by placing him and other inmates in court holding

cells for several hours with only one toilet and no access to a sink to wash his hands after

using the toilet, sneezing or coughing. (Ex. A at 2:5-7:23.) Plaintiff states in his complaint

that he seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages, including, under California Civil Code

§ 52, statutory damages. (Id. at 8:8-27.)

Case 3:10-cv-00465-MMC Document 11 Filed 06/15/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In his notice of removal, Ahern contends federal jurisdiction over plaintiff’s complaint

exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, based on the following: (1) the second paragraph of the

complaint, wherein plaintiff states: “Plaintiff brings this action to secure Constitutional (State

and Federal) and statutory rights which injunction (sic) relief is available to protect,” (see id.

at 1 ¶ 2), and (2) plaintiff’s reference in his claims to “equal protection,” “due process” and

“cruel and unusual punishment” (see id. at 7:25-28).

In plaintiff’s motion to remand the action to state court, however, plaintiff asserts that

he is bringing only state law causes of action in his complaint. Specifically, he states that he

filed his complaint under California Civil Code § 52.1, which provides a private cause of

action for both injunctive and monetary relief, including damages under § 52, where: “a

person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threats,

intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with

the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws

of this state . . . .” See Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(a), (b). 

Additionally, plaintiff states that the only remedy he seeks for alleged violations of his

rights to equal protection, due process and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment is the

remedy provided under § 52.1, and not any separate remedy under federal law. (Pl.’s Mot.

Remand at 5:16-24.) In that regard, plaintiff further states: “This is not a federal cause of

action nor does the federal court have original jurisdiction over this state civ code [sic] cause

of action.” (Id. at 5:24-6:2.) 

In sum, plaintiff expressly disavows asserting any federal cause of action in his

complaint, and states that any references in his complaint to violations of the federal

constitution are made only to secure a remedy for such violations as allowed under California

Civil Code § 52.1. Based thereon, the Court will construe plaintiff’s complaint as raising

solely a state law claim under California Civil Code § 52.1, and not a claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 or any other federal law. Consequently, because plaintiff’s complaint does not

include a claim arising under federal law, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over

Case 3:10-cv-00465-MMC Document 11 Filed 06/15/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

said complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and, consequently, must remand the action to state

court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to remand will be granted. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, 

1. Defendant’s motion for an initial screening is hereby GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand the action to the Alameda County Superior Court is

hereby GRANTED. 

The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order and a copy of the file to the Clerk of the

Alameda County Superior Court, and shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 15, 2010 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:10-cv-00465-MMC Document 11 Filed 06/15/10 Page 4 of 4