Kenneth Hill v. Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH HILL, No. 2:25-cv-01542 TLN SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT,

15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff is incarcerated in county jail and proceeds pro se with a civil rights action under 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s post-removal, first amended complaint (“FAC”) is before the 20 undersigned for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 (ECF No. 9.) Because plaintiff’s FAC 21 shed his federal claims, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 22 state-law claims. See Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22 (2025) (“Royal 23 Canin”). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s FAC be remanded to state 24 court. 25 //// 26

27 1 Plaintiff explained in a notice of errata (ECF No. 10) that he inadvertently attached tort claim documents meant to be filed in Hill v. Sacramento County, et al., 2:25-cv-02181 DJC EFB (E.D. 28 Cal.). The undersigned will…