(PC) McKenna v. Aguiar

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EDWARD MCKENNA, No. 2:25-cv-2009 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS C. AGUIAR, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On July 18, 2025, defendants filed a notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), claiming plaintiff asserted federal claims of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, in addition to state law claims. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2.)

20 On July 30, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion to remand, and appended his amended complaint. (ECF No. 3 at 21-37.) Defendants did not oppose plaintiff’s motion.

22 As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion to remand should be granted.

23 I. MOTION TO REMAND 24 “When an amendment excises the federal-law claims that enabled removal, the federal court loses its supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims. The case must therefore return to state court.” Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 25 (2025).

27 On July 30, 2025, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which is now the operative pleading before the Court. The amended complaint raises only state law causes of action. The | Court finds that plaintiff's motion to remand should be granted because plaintiff deleted any | federal claim from the amended complaint. (ECF No. 3 at 21-37.) Asa result, this Court no || longer has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims which should be returned to || state court. See Royal Canin U.S.A., 604 U.S. at 25; Gardea v. California, 2025 WL 1644149, *1 | (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2025); Thompson v. California, 2025 WL 660105, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, || 2025), report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 974050 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2025).

7 | IL |= CONCLUSION 8 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to separately docket plaintiffs attachment to his || motion to remand (ECF No. 3 at 21-37) as plaintiff's amended complaint filed July 30, 2025; and 11 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case.

12 IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. Plaintiffs motion to remand (ECF No. 3) be granted.

14 2. This case be remanded to the Solano County Superior Court, Case No. CU24-08105.

15 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Solano || County Superior Court, and to close the case.

17 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. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

26 | Dated: August 29, 2025 CC (i □ 27 CHI S00 KIM | jimexe2009 sem UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE