Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05673/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05673-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN R. ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUERRERO, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5673 OWW SMS P

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO KINGS

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT (Doc. 27.) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SERVE ORDER ON STATE COURT AND

PARTIES 

This is a civil action filed by Plaintiff Alvin R. Ross (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding in pro per. The action was removed from the Kings County Superior Court to this

Court by Defendant Guerrero (“Defendant”) on May 11, 2004. 

On April 14, 2005, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 27.) 

Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion on June 8, 2005. (Doc. 33.) On June 13, 2005,

Defendant filed a Reply to the Opposition. (Doc. 39.)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove from state court any action “of

which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” Federal courts “shall

Case 1:04-cv-05673-OWW -SMS Document 37 Filed 09/02/05 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

1

 “At the core of the federal judicial system is the principle that the federal courts are courts of limited

jurisdiction.” Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979).

2

have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of

the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Because of the “Congressional purpose to restrict the

jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal,” the removal statute is strictly construed against

removal.

1

 Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-109, 61 S.Ct. 868, 872

(1941); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Federal jurisdiction “must be

rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Duncan, 76 F.3d at

1485; Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Courts “must consider whether

federal jurisdiction exists, even if no objection is made to removal, and even if both parties

stipulate to federal jurisdiction.” Rains v. Criterion Systems, Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir.

1996) (citations omitted).

In the Notice of Removal, Defendant states that this is a civil action for “Defendant’s

alleged use of excessive force against Plaintiff which was an unnecessary infliction of pain

violating Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.” 

(Court Doc. 1.) However, Defendants’ characterization of the allegations in the Complaint as

constitutional claims arising under Section 1983 is not supported by a review of the Complaint. 

Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1979) (existence of federal

jurisdiction determined by the complaint at the time of removal). 

A review of the form Complaint submitted to the State Court by Plaintiff clearly indicates

that Plaintiff is suing Defendant Guerrero in his “individual capacity” and for the tort of

Negligence. (Court Doc. 1.) Further, Plaintiff’s brief, attached to the Complaint, lists explicitly

that Defendant had a duty, breached that duty, causation and damages. Id. Finally, the

Complaint not only fails to make any indication that Plaintiff is seeking relief for violation of his

federal rights, the Complaint cites only to state law in support of his claims. 

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded

complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is

presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc., v.

Case 1:04-cv-05673-OWW -SMS Document 37 Filed 09/02/05 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

2Ross v. Arnelle, et. al., 98-cv-05303-REC-HGB; Ross v. McCoy, et. al., 99-cv-06324-REC-LJO; Ross v.

Busby, et. al, 03-cv-06572-LJO; Ross v. Olivarez, 99-cv-02113-MCE-JFM. 

3

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The rule makes

the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive

reliance on state law.” Id. 

Plaintiff, who is no stranger to this court,2 could have brought this action in this Court

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by alleging that Defendant violated his rights under the United

States Constitution, however, he did not do so. Plaintiff’s decision to file suit in state court

utilizing a state civil complaint form alleging state law claims demonstrates that Plaintiff

exercised his right to rely exclusively on state law. Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and

will RECOMMEND to the District Court that the case be remanded to Kings County Superior

Court.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. This action is REMANDED to the Kings County Superior Court; and

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SERVE a copy of this Order on the Kings

County Superior Court and to serve the parties in the customary manner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05673-OWW -SMS Document 37 Filed 09/02/05 Page 3 of 3