Dombos v. LCCF et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
_____________________
FRANK DOMBOS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 25-cv-0668-KWR-KK
L.C.C.F. WARDEN, et al,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Frank Dombos’ pro se Motion to Remand and
Withdraw Federal Claims (Doc. 3) (Motion to Remand) along with his supplemental request to
remand his amended complaint (Doc. 8). 	Plaintiff is a state prisoner and is proceeding pro se.
He initiated this case by filing a Civil Complaint in New Mexico’s Fifth Judicial District Court.
See Doc. 1-1 (Original Complaint). 	The Original Complaint alleges prison officials improperly
seized Plaintiff’s property and failed to treat his medical needs. 	The Original Complaint does not
explicitly cite 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or another federal statute, but it cites federal case law and appears
to make arguments regarding Monell liability. 	See Doc. 1-1 at 6-7; see Monell v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (establishing the test to determine whether municipal
liability exists in cases involving a federal constitutional violation).
Defendants removed the case to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.
They argued jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the Original Complaint uses
common labels for federal constitutional claims and cites to federal case law to support the legal
theories. 	See Doc. 1 at 2; see also W. Shoshone Bus. Council ex rel. W. Shoshone Tribe of Duck
Valley Rsrv. v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1052, 1058 (10th Cir. 1993) (“To exercise federal question
Case 2:25-cv-00668-KWR-KK Document 10 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, there must be a constitutional or federal statutory provision
under which plaintiff [is] aggrieved.”). 	Plaintiff then sought to withdraw federal claims, if any
exist. 	See Doc. 3 at 2. 	His Motion to Remand states:
My lawsuit was written as a negligence claim, not to be a 1983 civil rights action in Federal
Court. Cruel and unusual punishment is mentioned in the Complaint. [Plaintiff] … was
mistaken and [in] error to associate cruel and unusual punishment with this, being a
negligence case…. For the record, I withdraw cruel and unusual punishment in my
complaint as an issue.
Doc. 3 at 2 (emphasis in original).
By a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered January 13, 2026, the Court granted
Plaintiff’s request, in part. 	See Doc. 7. 	The ruling explains that “[t]he well-pleaded complaint
rule makes the plaintiff the ‘master’ of his claim.” 	Firstenberg v. City of Santa Fe, 696 F.3d 1018,
1022 (10th Cir. 2012); see also Royal Canin, U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 35 (2025).
“The plaintiff can elect the judicial forum - state or federal - based on how he drafts his complaint.”
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 	“Although he may not circumvent federal
jurisdiction by omitting federal issues that are essential to his claim, he can nevertheless avoid
federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” 	Id. 	Moreover, when a plaintiff amends
the complaint to delete the federal claims that enabled removal, federal question jurisdiction
“dissolves.” 	Royal Canin, 604 U.S. at 39. 	“The operative pleading no longer supports federal
jurisdiction, and the federal court must remand the case to the state court where it started.” 	Id.
Consistent with this authority, the Court permitted Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
that omits all federal claims and only raises state law claims. 	Plaintiff timely complied. His
Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) alleges Defendants seized and damaged his property, which amounts
to negligence and “destruction” under state law. 	There are no references to federal authority, 42
Case 2:25-cv-00668-KWR-KK Document 10 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
U.S.C. § 1983, or the U.S. Constitution. 	The Amended Complaint also attaches a supplemental
request to remand. 	See Doc. 8 at 17. 	It confirms that Plaintiff “has withdrawn all federal claims,
and the amended complaint only raises state law claims.” 	Id. (emphasis in original).
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that “a federal question is [not] presented on the face of the
[his amended] … complaint.” 	Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392 (1987). 	Plaintiff now only raises
state law claims, and no substantial federal issues exist in the Amended Complaint. 	The Court
therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 	See Royal Canin, 604 U.S. at 39. 	The Court will
grant the remaining relief requested in the Motion to Remand (Doc. 3, supplemented by Doc. 8)
and remand this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT 	IS 	THEREFORE 	ORDERED 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	to 	Remand 	(Doc. 	3,
supplemented by Doc. 8) is GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to take the necessary actions to remand this matter to
the Fifth Judicial District, Lea County, New Mexico (Case No. D-506-CV-2025-00549) and close
the above-captioned federal case.
___/S/_____________________________
KEA W. RIGGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00668-KWR-KK Document 10 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 3