Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02353/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02353-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patricia Arnswald
Defendant
Saadhi Abdul Coleman
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAADHI ABDUL COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICIA ARNSWALD,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-2353 CKD P

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant, an employee of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at 

High Desert State Prison, recently removed this action from the Superior Court of Lassen County. 

Plaintiff is an inmate housed at California State Prison, Sacramento. In his complaint, which was 

originally filed on June 4, 2015, plaintiff alleges that while he was an inmate at High Desert, 

defendant denied plaintiff the ability to communicate with the Superior Court of Lassen County 

and California’s Office of the Attorney General. Defendant removed, asserting plaintiff’s claims 

arise under the First Amendment.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may generally remove a civil action brought in 

state court to a United States district court if the district court has original jurisdiction over the 

claims presented. United States district courts have original jurisdiction over claims arising under 

the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

/////

Case 2:15-cv-02353-JAM-CKD Document 3 Filed 11/17/15 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

In his complaint, plaintiff makes no mention of the First Amendment, any other 

Constitutional provision, or any other provision of federal law. Instead, plaintiff asserts his 

claims arise under various provisions of California law including the California Tort Claims Act, 

Government Code § 810 et. seq., California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 85, 86, and the California 

Constitution. ECF No. 1 at 9 & 15. In the “Conclusion” portion of his complaint, plaintiff asks

“that this court deem defendant’s actions a violation of clearly established state law and grant 

plaintiff relief.”

While plaintiff asserts facts which might amount to a claim arising under federal law, it is

certainly plaintiff’s prerogative whether to pursue a federal claim, and it is clear that plaintiff has 

chosen not to do so.1 Furthermore, although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible 

pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice of claims. Jones v. Community Redev. 

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a district court must remand any removed case if at any point 

it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Because plaintiff does not bring any 

of his claims under any provision of federal law, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 

plaintiff’s claims and removal of this action was improper. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that Clerk of the Court assign a district 

court judge to this case; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be remanded to the Superior Court of 

Lassen County.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

 

1

 The fact that plaintiff has filed approximately 15 different actions in this court indicate that 

plaintiff has at least a basic understanding of the concept that claims can arise under federal and / 

or state laws. For example, in his amended complaint filed in 2:13-cv-1753 KJM CKD P (ECF 

No. 17), plaintiff asserts claims under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (id. at 1) as well as claims for “violations of clearly established state laws” (id. at 

1). 

Case 2:15-cv-02353-JAM-CKD Document 3 Filed 11/17/15 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

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after 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). 

Dated: November 17, 2015

1

cole2353.rem

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-02353-JAM-CKD Document 3 Filed 11/17/15 Page 3 of 3