United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a state prisoner proceeding pro se, originally filed this
civil rights action in Sacramento County Superior Court. ECF
No. 1 at 6-17. Defendants removed the case to federal court
under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) on July 26, 2019. Id.
at 1-4. Plaintiff objected to the removal on the ground that
his allegations were based on violations of state law. ECF
No. 5 at 1. He further stated that he intended to amend the
complaint to remove any federal claims. Id. After
reviewing the complaint, the undersigned overruled
plaintiff's objections because it was clear that he had
alleged violations of federal law, and the removal was timely
and proper. ECF No. 6. However, plaintiff was given an
opportunity to file an amended complaint and motion to
remand. Id. Plaintiff has now filed an amended
complaint that removes all federal claims (ECF No. 10) and a
motion to remand to state court (ECF No. 8). Defendants have
stated that they are unopposed to the case being remanded to
state court based on the amended complaint's removal of
any federal claims. ECF No. 12.
plaintiff's federal claims have been removed, it is at
this court's discretion whether to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law
claims. Carlsbad Tech. Inc. v. HIF Bio,
Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 640 (2009) (statutory supplemental
jurisdiction over state law claims remains even after
dismissal of federal claims and is exercised at court's
discretion); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where all
claims over which it had original jurisdiction are
dismissed). The court's decision whether to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction should be informed by “values
of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”
Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001
(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted). Further, primary responsibility for
developing and applying state law rests with the state
courts. Therefore, when federal claims are eliminated before
trial, district courts should usually decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v.
Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 & n.7 (1988) (citation
omitted); Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't,
40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (“‘[I]n the
usual case in which federal-law claims are
eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will
point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the
remaining state law claims.'” (emphasis and
alteration in original) (quoting Schneider v. TRW,
Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 993 (9th Cir. 1991))). Because the
federal claims have been removed and this case is in its
early stages, the court should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law
claims and should instead remand the case to state court.
See Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 357
(“[A] district court has discretion to remand to state
court a removed case involving pendent claims upon a proper
determination that retaining jurisdiction over the case would
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to remand this action to state
court (ECF No. 8) be GRANTED and the matter be remanded to
the Sacramento County Superior Court.
2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to mail a certified
copy of the order of remand to the clerk of the Sacramento
County Superior Court.
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).
 Plaintiff's state law claims were
based upon the same incidents as his federal law claims.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (“[T]he district
courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other
claims that are so related to claims in the action within
such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same
case or ...