Freeman #50101 v. NaphCare 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
JL
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Benjamin Freeman,
Plaintiff,
v.
NaphCare, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-00089-PHX-JAT (JZB)
ORDER
I. Procedural History
On November 7, 2025, Plaintiff Benjamin Freeman, who is confined in the Arizona
State Prison Complex-Yuma, filed a Complaint (Doc. 1-1 at 12-22) in the Superior Court
of Yuma County, Arizona, against NaphCare, Director of Nursing Marcella Meza, Nurse
Sotelo, Physician’s Assistant Smalley, and Psychologist Claudia Vega. On January 7,
2026, Defendant Sotelo filed a Notice of Removal and removed the case to this 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,
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
Case 2:26-cv-00089-JAT--JZB Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 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
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.
Defendant Sotelo asserts that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because
Plaintiff brings his claims, “at least in part, based on his allegation that Defendant(s)
‘retaliated against [him] for filing grievances, lawsuits in the practice of his 1st Amendment
Rights.’” However, Plaintiff cited only the Arizona Constitution, Arizona statutes
regarding individuals with disabilities, “dereliction,” “breach of contract,” and “retaliation”
as the applicable law supporting his claims. 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
Case 2:26-cv-00089-JAT--JZB Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 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
over Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court will remand this case to Yuma County Superior
Court.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) This matter is remanded to the Superior of Yuma County, Arizona.
(2) The Clerk of Court must mail a certified copy of this Order to:
Lynn Fazz
Clerk of Court
Yuma County Superior Court
250 W. 2nd Street
Yuma, AZ 85364
(3) The Clerk of Court must close this federal case.
Dated this 9th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00089-JAT--JZB Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 3