Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00612/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00612-2/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

LANCE ELLIOT WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. KATAVICH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00612-AWI-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 

AND REMAND TO KERN COUNTY 

SUPERIOR COURT

(Docs. 13, 14, 16)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Lance Elliot Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil action 

in Kern County Superior Court on October 23, 2014. In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks relief for 

incidents that occurred relating to his personal glasses when he arrived at Wasco State Prison. 

Defendants Katavich and Kirkman (“Defendants”) removed the action to this court under 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(a) on April 16, 2015. (See Docs. 1, 2.)

On December 31, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a) and found that it did not state any cognizable claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 

13.) The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that 

are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(b)(1), (2). Thus, Plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint and 

was informed that if he failed to do so, this action would be remanded to Kern County Superior 

Court. (Doc. 13.) 

Case 1:15-cv-00612-AWI-SKO Document 17 Filed 05/04/16 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

On January 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice that he did not intend to file an amended 

complaint and requested that this action be remanded to state court. (Doc. 14.) Defendants 

subsequently filed a statement of non-opposition to remand of this action to state court. (Doc. 

16.)

A district court may remand to state court a case that has been removed to the district 

court if at any time it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 

1447(c). Where a motion for remand is not made within 30 days of removal of the case to the 

district court, the court must remand the case to state court sua sponte if federal subject matter 

jurisdiction is lacking. Id. A federal court must determine its own jurisdiction even if the parties 

fail to raise the issue. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230-31, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 

L.Ed.2d 603 (1990).

Federal courts are to construe removal statutes strictly to limit removal jurisdiction. 

Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941); 

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992). Removal is generally proper only when 

the district courts have original jurisdiction over the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441; Duncan v. 

Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.1996). Jurisdiction must be determined from the face of the 

complaint, Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 

(1987), and it must be clear from the face of the complaint under the well-pleaded complaint rule 

that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n. v. Graham, 489 U.S. 838, 

840-41, 109 S.Ct. 1519, 103 L.Ed.2d 924 (1989) (per curiam). Since the Complaint does not state 

any claims that are cognizable under section 1938, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the action. 

Here, remand is proper since Plaintiff indicates he does not wish to attempt to cure the 

defects in his pleading and prefers that the action be remanded to state court. Plaintiff “is ‘the 

master of his complaint’ and may 'avoid federal jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law.'" 

Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) quoting Balcorta v. Twentieth 

Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir.2000).

Defendants removed this action to this Court. Their statement of non-opposition, 

however, justifies a remand because they bear the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction. 

Case 1:15-cv-00612-AWI-SKO Document 17 Filed 05/04/16 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

Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with 

prejudice for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that it be remanded to Kern 

County Superior Court. 

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 

twenty-one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff 

may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to 

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 

1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00612-AWI-SKO Document 17 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 3