A.B.O. Comix v. County of San Mateo

Background

San Mateo County had a policy of digitizing and later destroying mail sent to people in its jails. According to the complaint, people in the jails generally could not receive physical mail, except for attorney communications. The digitized mail was stored in a database accessible to law-enforcement officers and investigators, who could read and search it without individualized suspicion or notice.

The plaintiffs included incarcerated individuals, A.B.O. Comix, Malti Prasad, Zachary Greenberg, and Wumi Oladipo. They alleged that the policy violated Article I, Sections 2 and 13 of the California Constitution because it interfered with communication and permitted unreasonable searches and seizures of correspondence.

The original complaint also asserted claims under the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The defendants removed the case from San Mateo County Superior Court to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint as of right that eliminated all federal claims. The amended complaint contained only the California constitutional claims. After plaintiffs moved to remand, defendants filed an answer asserting four counterclaims, including two based on federal law.

Federal-Question Jurisdiction

The court held that the amended complaint did not present a federal question. Plaintiffs are generally the masters of their complaint, meaning they may choose the legal grounds on which they sue. Here, plaintiffs chose to rely only on state law in the amended complaint.

The court rejected defendants’ argument that federal legal standards relevant to prison policies created federal jurisdiction. Even if a federal standard, including the standard associated with Turner v. Safley, might be relevant to deciding the state-law claims, that relevance did not create federal-question jurisdiction or require the federal court to retain the case.

The court also rejected the argument that the state-law claims necessarily raised a substantial federal issue. It concluded that the claims did not fall within the narrow category of state-law claims that can support federal jurisdiction because they necessarily require resolution of a federal issue.

Discretionary Remand

Because the federal claims had been eliminated, the court had discretion to retain the remaining state-law claims, remand them, or dismiss them. The court evaluated fairness, judicial economy, comity, and convenience. It found no evidence that plaintiffs acted in bad faith by choosing to pursue the state-law claims in state court. It also found little judicial-economy benefit in keeping the case in federal court, noted that state courts were better positioned to decide the California constitutional claims, and found no additional convenience from litigating in the Northern District of California.

The court therefore concluded that the balance of considerations favored remand to state court. It also rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiffs had to dismiss the eliminated federal claims with prejudice before obtaining remand. The court did not require that dismissal.

Federal Counterclaims

The court held that defendants’ federal counterclaims did not provide federal-question jurisdiction. It rejected the proposal to remand the state-law claims while retaining jurisdiction over the federal counterclaims. The court stated that it had discretion to remand the entire case and exercised that discretion.

Disposition

The court GRANTED plaintiffs’ motion to remand to San Mateo County Superior Court. It also GRANTED defendants’ administrative motion for leave to file a supplemental opposition to the remand motion. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 28 and 40.