(PC) White v. Lizaraga, 2:18-cv-03167

Plaintiff Keith Lee White, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint in Amador County Superior Court on March 16, 2017 alleging interference with mail, access to courts, and violations of constitutional rights.
Defendants (including Joe Lizarraga and J. Dowdy) were served and removed the action to federal court on December 7, 2018 under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court, arguing his complaint did not assert federal causes of action.
Defendants opposed remand and asserted federal-question jurisdiction based on allegations in the complaint invoking multiple U.S. Constitutional amendments and federal statutes.
The magistrate judge found that the face of the complaint alleged federal constitutional violations, that removal was proper, and recommended denial of the motion to remand; the court also ordered ministerial docket matters and indicated it would screen the First Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A if the recommendation is adopted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case was properly removed to federal court	White: complaint asserts only state-law claims and thus should be remanded	Defendants: complaint alleges violations of U.S. Constitution and federal statutes, so federal-question jurisdiction exists	Removal proper; remand denied (recommendation)
Whether federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over state claims	White: state claims should remain in state court	Defendants: state claims are related to federal claims and fall under supplemental jurisdiction	Court: supplemental jurisdiction applies under § 1367(a)

Felton v. Unisource Corp., 940 F.2d 503 (9th Cir. 1991) (removal requires federal cause to appear on face of complaint)
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal-question removal)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (federal jurisdiction exists only when federal question appears on face of plaintiff’s complaint)
Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1988) (burden on removing party to establish federal jurisdiction)
Smith v. Mylan Inc., 761 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2014) (district court must remand if it appears at any time it lacks subject matter jurisdiction)
Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987) (proper removal divests state court of jurisdiction)
Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2011) (federal court lacks authority to remand when it has original jurisdiction over removed claims)
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to timely object to magistrate judge findings may waive appellate rights)