Houston v. Phoenix Police Department et al

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
MDR
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jermaine Houston,
Plaintiff,
v.
Officer Ranzau,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-04129-PHX-JAT (CDB)
ORDER
I. Procedural History
On September 3, 2025, Plaintiff Jermaine Houston filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of Maricopa County, Arizona. On September 12, 2025, he filed an Amended
Complaint (Doc. 1 at 13-18)1 against Defendant Officer Ranzau. On November 4, 2025,
Defendant Ranzau filed a Notice of Removal and removed the case to this Court. On
November 10, 2025, the parties filed a Stipulated Motion to Amend Complaint and Extend
Responsive Pleading Deadline (Doc. 3).
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,
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
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-04129-JAT--CDB Document 4 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 3

- 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
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).
“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.
The plaintiff is the master of the claim 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.
Defendant contends the Court has jurisdiction because Plaintiff “has asserted a
claim of violation of his Civil Rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution pursuant to
alleging excessive use of force.” This is not true. Plaintiff makes no mention of his civil
rights, the United States Constitution, or an excessive use of force. The entirety of his
factual allegations are: “Jermaine Houston had several seizures in custody of the police on
12/08/23[.] Jermaine Houston ask for his medication by police but he was denied[.] Police
also made force as needed doing this incident.” (Doc. 1 at 14.) And his civil cover sheet
asserts he is raising a “Negligence” claim. (Id. at 10.)
Case 2:25-cv-04129-JAT--CDB Document 4 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 3

- 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
Because Defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing federal jurisdiction
over this case, the Court will remand this case to the Maricopa County Superior Court. The
Court will not rule on the Stipulated Motion to Amend Complaint and Extend Responsive
Pleading Deadline.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) This matter is remanded to the Maricopa County Superior Court.
(2) The Clerk of Court must mail a certified copy of this Order to:
Joseph W. Malka
Clerk of the Superior Court
Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court
201 West Jefferson
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2205
(3) The Clerk of Court must close this federal case.
Dated this 10th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-04129-JAT--CDB Document 4 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 3