FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY MOTION FOR REMAND

(ECF No. 8)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was removed from the Madera County Superior Court on September 12, 2016.

Before the Court is Plaintiff's September 28, 2016 motion for remand. (ECF No. 8.) Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed no reply. The matter is submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

I. Parties Arguments

Plaintiff asks the Court to either exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims or to remand those claims to state court after rendering a determination on his constitutional retaliation claim.

Defendant responds that Plaintiff's request is premature. In the event the Court dismisses Plaintiff's federal claims, it may remand or dismiss the remaining state law claims.

II. Discussion

The Court has conducted an initial screening of Plaintiff's complaint and determined that he states a cognizable claim for First Amendment retaliation. Accordingly, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims, which arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Court has done so in the screening order, and determined that the state law claims are not cognizable as pled.

Plaintiff provides no basis to suggest that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is improper at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, the motion for remand should be denied.

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. Plaintiff suggests no other basis for remand. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the motion for remand be DENIED.

The findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.