From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gann v. Kokor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 20, 2018
Case No. 1:18-cv-00084-AWI-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 1:18-cv-00084-AWI-BAM (PC)

04-20-2018

NATHANIEL MARCUS GANN, Plaintiff, v. KOKOR, et al, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND (ECF No. 14)

Plaintiff Nathaniel Marcus Gann ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action in Kings County Superior Court on August 16, 2017. On January 16, 2018, Defendants Cryer, Enenmoh, Kokor, and Lewis (collectively "Defendants") removed the action and requested that the Court screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and that Defendants be allowed thirty days from the screening of the complaint to file a responsive pleading. (ECF No. 2.) On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed an objection to the removal. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.)

The Magistrate Judge construed Plaintiff's objection to the removal as a motion to remand. (ECF No. 7.) Defendants filed a response on January 31, 2018, (ECF No. 9), and Plaintiff filed a reply on February 12, 2018, (ECF No. 13).

On February 20, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff's motion to remand be denied. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on March 12, 2018. (ECF No. 15.)

The Court notes that the deadline for Plaintiff's objections was March 9, 2018. Plaintiff is advised that the deadline for filing his objections was calculated from the date of service of the Court's findings and recommendations, February 20, 2018, rather than the date of signing, February 16, 2018. In addition, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), Plaintiff is allowed an additional three (3) days following service made by mail. Finally, although Plaintiff's objections were not docketed until March 12, 2018, the filing includes a proof of service dated March 8, 2018. Pursuant to the prison mailbox rule, a pleading filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed to be filed as of the date the prisoner delivered it to the prison authorities for mailing to the court clerk. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2009) (mailbox rule articulated in Houston applies to civil rights actions).

In his objections, Plaintiff argues that although his complaint presents overlapping issues of federal and state law, he disagrees with the rules "that force overlapping issues into federal court," because they make it more difficult for an average person to be treated justly, and should therefore not be enforceable. With respect to his objection to the screening of the complaint, Plaintiff argues that doctors should be considered employees of the patients they treat, even if they are paid by a government entity or state agency. Plaintiff has further attached a complete copy of the complaint.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's objections and finds them to be meritless. It is evident from Plaintiff's complaint, as well as his concession that the case presents "overlapping" issues of federal and state law, that he is pursuing federal causes of action over which this Court maintains federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff's argument that having his claims heard in federal court will make it more difficult for his claims to be heard fairly is unpersuasive and unsupported. Similarly, his argument that doctors should not be considered employees of a government entity because they should be "working for the patient," is equally unsupported and unpersuasive.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 20, 2018, (ECF No. 14), are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's motion to remand, filed on January 25, 2018, (ECF No. 6), is DENIED;

3. Defendants shall submit an amended notice of removal within five (5) days following service of this order to include a complete copy of the complaint; and

4. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 20, 2018

/s/_________

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Gann v. Kokor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 20, 2018
Case No. 1:18-cv-00084-AWI-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2018)
Case details for

Gann v. Kokor

Case Details

Full title:NATHANIEL MARCUS GANN, Plaintiff, v. KOKOR, et al, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 20, 2018

Citations

Case No. 1:18-cv-00084-AWI-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2018)