Opinion
2:22-cv-0638 CKD P
02-06-2023
RUDY AROCHA, Plaintiff, v. RALPH M. DIAZ, Defendant.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On April 8, 2022, defendant removed this action from the Superior Court of Sacramento County pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand this action back to Sacramento County. Plaintiff asserts that the court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiff's only claim which arises under California Civil Code § 52.1, also known as the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. Under that law, an individual can file suit if the “exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or rights secured by the Constitution or laws of [California], has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with.”
In his complaint, plaintiff alleges the violations of law which form the basis of his Bane Act claim include violations of his right to due process, equal protection and to be free of cruel an unusual punishment. These are all United States and California constitutional protections. In his complaint, plaintiff does not specify whether the underlying violations of law arise under California or federal law.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331, grants U.S. District Courts original jurisdiction over any claim arising under federal law. The Supreme Court has clarified the instances in which a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction include “where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turned on some construction of federal law. . .” Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for So. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 9 (1983). However, just because an element that is essential to a particular theory of recovery is governed by federal law does not mean that the claim actually arises under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 811 (1988). The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal. Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921).
The rule of law announced by the Supreme Court in Christianson is determinative here. An element of plaintiff's Bane Act claim could be satisfied by a showing of a violation of federal law, but it also could be satisfied by a violation of state law. This is not sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over plaintiff's Bane Act claim. This being the case, plaintiff's motion for remand should be granted and this case remanded back to the Superior Court of Sacramento County.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to remand this case to the Superior Court of Sacramento County (ECF No. 5) be granted; and
2. This case be remanded to the Superior Court of Sacramento 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)(1). 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 “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).