Miller v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 1:12-cv-00353-LJO-GSA-PC
| Decision Date | 26 October 2012 |
| Docket Number | 1:12-cv-00353-LJO-GSA-PC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | CHARLES A. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. |
MOTION FOR REMAND BE DENIED (Doc. 9.)
This is a civil action filed by Charles A. Miller ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se. This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by Plaintiff in the Fresno County Superior Court on June 15, 2010 (Case #10CECG02100). On March 8, 2012, defendants Adonis, Griffith, Gutierrez, Igbinosa, Medina, and Mendez ("Removing Defendants") removed the case to federal court by filing a Notice of Removal of Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (federal question). (Doc. 1.) The Removing Defendants assert that defendant Medina was served with a copy of the complaint on February 14, 2012; defendant Mendez was served on February 16, 2012; and defendants Adonis, Griffith, Gutierrez, and Igbinosa were served on February 21, 2012. (Exh. B to Notice of Removal, Doc. 1-7.) On March 8, 2012, defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), Ahmed, Anderson, Chudy, Duenas, Eddings, Pascual, and Walker ("Consenting Defendants") joined in the Notice of Removal of Action. (Doc. 4.)
On March 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this action to the Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. 9.) On April 9, 2012, all of the Defendants filed an opposition. (Doc. 12.) On May 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed a reply. (Docs. 13, 14.)
With exceptions not relevant here, "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction[] may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal courts "shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This court has original jurisdiction over actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Removal of an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) depends solely on the nature of the plaintiff's complaint, and is properly removed only if "a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States [constitutes] an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff's cause of action." Gully v. First National Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936). Removal statutes are strictly construed. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). "Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992). "The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal." Harris v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986)). The plaintiff is the master of his or her own complaint and is free to ignore the federal cause of action and rest the claim solely on a state cause of action. See The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 228 U.S. 22, 25, (1913); Jones v. General Tire & Rubber Co., 541 F.2d 660, 664 (7th Cir.1976); La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., 506 F.2d 339, 346 (3d Cir.1974), cert denied, 421 U.S. 937 (1975).
A notice of removal must contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). "The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within 30 days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
A plaintiff objecting to the removal may file a motion asking the district court to remand the case to state court. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 69 (1996). The Court may remand an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for any defect in the removal procedures. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A plaintiff may move for remand when removal to federal court was procedurally defective, although procedural defects do not necessarily deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. A motion to remand the case for procedural defects in the removal must be made within 30 days after the removal notice is filed in federal court. Id.; Northern Calif. Dist. Council of Laborers v. Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co. (9th Cir. 1995) 69 F3d 1034, 1038.
Removal statutes are construed restrictively, so as to limit removal jurisdiction, and doubts as to removability are resolved in favor of remanding the case to the state court. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-109, 61 S.Ct. 868, 872 (1941); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. On plaintiff's motion for remand, the defendant seeking removal of the action to federal court has the burden of establishing grounds for federal jurisdiction in the case. Id.. The defendant also has the burden of showing that it has complied with the procedural requirements for removal. California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff argues that this case should be remanded to the Fresno County Superior Court, due to procedural defects in Defendants' notice of removal.
As a matter of background, Plaintiff asserts the following:1
State Court - The Complaint was originally filed on June 15, 2010, in the Fresno County Superior Court as Miller v. CDCR, et al., case number 10-CECG-02100. (Declaration of Charles Miller, Doc. 13 ¶2.) On July 21, 2010, Plaintiff served defendant Walker. (Id. ¶4.) On July 22, 2010, Plaintiff served defendants Pasqual, Ahmed, Anderson, and Chudy. (Id.)
First Removal and Remand - On August 6, 2010, defendants Walker, Pasqual, and Ahmed removed the case to the present federal court [United States District Court for the Eastern District of California], where it was assigned case number 1:10-cv-01428-AWI-SMS-PC. (Id. ¶5.) However, defendants Anderson and Chudy did not join in the notice of removal, and they did not formally file consents to removal until September 13, 2010. Id. On or about August 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case, in part because defendants Anderson and Chudy had not timely consented to the removal. Id. ¶6. On or about March 10, 2011, Plaintiff's motion was granted, and the case was remanded to the Fresno Superior Court based on the failure of the consenting defendants to unanimously consent to removal in a timely manner. Id. ¶7.
State Court - Back in state court, Plaintiff proceeded to initiate service upon the unserved defendants. Due to difficulties obtaining copies of the 228-page Complaint at the prison, Plaintiff sought and was granted extensions of time at state court to complete service. Id.. ¶9, 10. In 2011, Plaintiff was only able to serve defendants CDCR, Eddings, and Duenas. Id. ¶13. In 2012, Plaintiff served the remaining party defendants Adonis, Griffith, Gutierrez, Igbinosa, Medina, and Mendez. Id.
Second Removal - On March 8, 2012, Defendants Adonis, Griffith, Gutierrez, Igbinosa, Medina, and Mendez filed the present notice of removal [case 1:12-cv-01503-GSA-PC]. Id. ¶14.
Plaintiff argues that the Removing Defendants' March 8, 2012 notice of removal fails to comply with the requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), because they did not include, with the notice, all of the documents served upon the defendants in the state-court action. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the Removing Defendants failed to submit copies of the Proof of Service of Summons, Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt-Civil, Statement of Damages, Notice of Related Action, and Notice of Case Management Conference and Assignment of Judge For All Purposes order, which Plaintiff asserts he served on all of the defendants between July 21, 2010 and February 21, 2012.
Defendants acknowledge that all of the documents served on the Defendants were not included with the notice of removal. However, Defendants maintain that the notice of removal is not defective, because the Removing Defendants requested to be excused from this requirement and also requested that the Court issue a writ of certiorari pursuant to § 1447(b) to obtain the entire state-court file.2 Defendants assert that defense counsel thought it more practical and judicially economical to make a request under § 1447(b) to obtain the state-court file, rather than attach the documents to the removal notice. Defendants request that if the Court denies their request for a writ of certiorari, they be allowed to file the required documents.
Plaintiff replies that Defendants should not be excused from strictly complying with § 1446(a) simply because they requested to be excused from the requirement and requested that the Court issue a writ of certiorari to obtain the entire state-court file.
Section 1446(a) requires the removing defendant to "file in the district court . . . a notice of removal . . . containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Section 1446(a) does not require the removing defendants to submit copies of all of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial