Deaton v. Town of Barrington et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
JOHN DEATON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) C.A. No. 20-015 WES
)
TOWN OF BARRINGTON, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
__________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, District Judge.
A state court action may only be removed “if the federal court
has 	original 	jurisdiction.” 	Sheehan 	v. 	Broadband 	Access 	Servs.,
889 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	284, 	287 	(D.R.I. 	2012) 	(citing 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1441
(2006). 	“Under 	the 	well-pleaded 	complaint 	rule 	the 	question 	of
jurisdiction 	must 	be 	determined 	from 	Plaintiffs’ 	statement 	of
claim in the complaint.” 	Rhode Island Fishermen’s Alliance, Inc.,
ex rel. Fuka v. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt., C.A. No. 07-230ML, 2007 WL
7328831, 	at 	*4 	(D.R.I. 	Nov. 	5, 	2007) 	aff’d 	sub 	nom. 	Rhode 	Island
Fishermen’s Alliance, Inc. v. Rhode Island Dep’t Of Envtl. Mgmt.,
585 	F.3d 	42 	(1st 	Cir. 	2009). 	The 	question 	is 	“whether 	the
plaintiff[s’] claim to relief rests upon a federal right, and the
court 	is 	to 	look 	only 	to 	plaintiff[s’] 	complaint 	to 	find 	the
answer.” 	Id. 	(quoting 	Rosello–Gonzalez 	v. 	Calderon–Serra, 	398
F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2004)) (emphasis removed).
Case 1:20-cv-00015-WES-LDA Document 14 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Here, 	Plaintiff 	clearly 	states 	in 	his 	Complaint 	that 	he
“alleges 	violations 	of 	his 	civil 	rights 	under 	Rhode 	Island 	and
Federal law” and that Defendants violated his “due process rights
to be free from arbitrary and unreasonable action that are secured
under 	the 	Fourth, 	Fifth 	and 	Fourteenth 	Amendments 	to 	the 	United
States 	Constitution 	and 	protected 	by 	R.I. 	[sic] 	9-31-1.” 	Compl.
¶¶ 1, 72, ECF No. 1-1 (emphasis added). 	However, Plaintiff argues
that Count IV of his Complaint, while referencing federal law, is
captioned 	as 	a 	violation 	of 	his 	rights 	under 	R.I. 	Gen. 	Laws 	§ 	9-
31-1, 	and 	thus 	that 	he 	intended 	to 	base 	his 	allegations 	only 	on
state law. 	See Pl.’s Reply Mem. in Support of Pl.’s Mot. to Remand
3, ECF No. 10.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s use of the conjunction “and”
indicates that he based his allegations on both federal and state
law. 	Compl. 	¶ 	72. 	Moreover, 	as 	Defendants 	rightly 	point 	out,
Section 9-31-1 is Rhode Island’s waiver of sovereign immunity and
does 	not 	create 	its 	own 	cause 	of 	action. 	See 	Defs.’ 	Mem. 	of 	Law
in 	Supp. 	of 	Obj. 	to 	Pl.’s 	Mot. 	to 	Remand 	3 	n.2, 	ECF 	No. 	9-1.
Therefore, 	Plaintiff’s 	allegations 	of 	a 	“conspiracy 	to 	violate
[his] civil rights” must be based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the vehicle
through which he could allege “violations of his civil rights[.]”
Compl. 	¶ 	1; 	see 	also 	LaBrecque 	v. 	Sch. 	Admin. 	Dist. 	No. 	57, 	No.
06-56-P-S, 2006 WL 1208024, at *2 (D. Me. May 2, 2006)(recommending
Case 1:20-cv-00015-WES-LDA Document 14 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
the 	court 	exercise 	federal 	court 	jurisdiction 	over 	the 	action,
even where there is no specific mention of Section 1983).
Thus, 	Plaintiff’s 	Complaint 	plainly 	contains 	a 	claim 	to
relief 	that 	rests 	upon 	a 	federal 	right, 	Rhode 	Island 	Fishermen’s
Alliance, 	2007 	WL 	7328831, 	at 	*4, 	and 	this 	Court 	can 	exercise
supplemental 	jurisdiction 	over 	the 	remaining 	state 	law 	claims.
See 	Roche 	v. 	John 	Hancock 	Mut. 	Life. 	Ins. 	Co., 	81 	F.3d 	249, 	257
(1st Cir. 1996).
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	to 	Remand 	is
hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
District Judge
Date: May 12, 2020
Case 1:20-cv-00015-WES-LDA Document 14 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>