Ayarzagoitia v. Wallace

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JL
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Damian Ayarzagoitia,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carol Wallace,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-03724-PHX-JAT (JFM)
ORDER
I. Procedural History
On July 29, 2025, Plaintiff Damian Ayarzagoitia, who is confined in the Saguaro
Correctional Center, filed a Complaint (Doc. 1-1 at 2-6)1 in the Superior Court of Pinal
County, Arizona, against Assistant Warden Carol Wallace. On October 6, 2025, Defendant
Wallace filed a Notice of Removal and removed the case to this Court. On October 9,
2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Stay and Screen Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 3.) On
October 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Objection to Notice of Removal and Request to Keep
Action in Superior Court (Doc. 4), which the Clerk of Court docketed as a Motion to
Remand to Superior Court.
II. Remand
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and “possess only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America,
1 The citation refers to the document and page number generated by the Court’s
Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system.
Case 2:25-cv-03724-JAT--JFM Document 5 Filed 10/27/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited
jurisdiction” and the burden of establishing jurisdiction is on the party asserting
jurisdiction. Id. Limitations on the court’s jurisdiction must neither be disregarded nor
evaded. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). The Court is
obligated to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate
Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time
before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the
case shall be remanded.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time
that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
“The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” California
ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). The
party invoking the statute bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Id. “Federal
jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
Federal courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The presence or
absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’
which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on
the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482
U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see California ex rel. Lockyer, 375 F.3d at 838.
Here, Defendant asserts that “[a]lthough it is not entirely clear, it appears that
Plaintiff’s Complaint intends to assert claims arising under federal law.” Defendant
contends that Plaintiff “fails to allege specific causes of action to include any state law tort
action” and instead “appears to be asserting a federal constitutional violation claim for
denial of access to courts which could be brought as: (1) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Monell Civil
Rights Claim – Unconstitutional Policy and Custom; (2) a Fifth Amendment (due process
violation lack of access to courts) Claim; and/or (3) a Fourteenth Amendment (due process
Case 2:25-cv-03724-JAT--JFM Document 5 Filed 10/27/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
violation lack of access to courts).” According to Defendant, “generously read, Plaintiff’s
Complaint appears to assert federal questions.”
In his Motion to Remand, Plaintiff states that he is not alleging any constitutional
or federal law claims, “nor is he intending to do so.” Plaintiff asserts that his claim “is
based upon the State Court system not accepting handwritten documents for filing,” and
he is “seeking redress from the State Court to order Defendant to allow for the opportunity
to type out pleadings, using a computer, so that the State Court rules can be complied with.”
The plaintiff is the master of his claims and “may avoid federal jurisdiction by
exclusive reliance on state law.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. A plaintiff, therefore, may
choose to have a case heard in state court “by eschewing claims based on federal law.” Id.
at 399. See also California ex rel. Lockyer, 375 F.3d at 838-39. Even if some of Plaintiff’s
allegations may be consistent with federal causes of action, Plaintiff has explicitly
designated his claims as arising solely under state law. As such, Defendant has failed to
demonstrate that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint.
The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and will remand this case to Pinal
County Superior Court. The Court will deny Defendant’s Motion to Stay and Screen
Plaintiff’s Complaint as moot.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to Superior Court (Doc. 4) is granted. This
matter is remanded to the Superior of Pinal County, Arizona.
(2) Defendant’s Motion to Stay and Screen Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 3) is
denied as moot.
(3) The Clerk of Court must mail a certified copy of this Order to:
Rebecca Padilla
Clerk of Court
Pinal County Superior Court
PO Box 2730
Florence, AZ 85132
. . . .
Case 2:25-cv-03724-JAT--JFM Document 5 Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(4) The Clerk of Court must close this federal case.
Dated this 27th day of October, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-03724-JAT--JFM Document 5 Filed 10/27/25 Page 4 of 4