Post-Removal Amendment Allows Remand to State Court Under Royal Canin

On April 22, U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason granted Martin Twitchell’s motion to remand the case, Twitchell v. State of Alaska, to the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage.

The dispute centers on allegations that a Department of Corrections employee placed Twitchell into an unsupervised cell at the Anchorage Correctional Complex while he was heavily intoxicated, leading to a serious injury.

Twitchell originally filed his complaint in state court alleging five claims, including an Eighth Amendment violation and negligent training under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alongside state law tort claims.

Defendants removed the case to federal court on March 13, 2026, asserting original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Twitchell subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint and then a Second Amended Complaint with the defendants’ written consent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The Second Amended Complaint deleted the reference to the Eighth Amendment and pleaded only a violation of Article I, Section 12 of the Alaska Constitution.

Judge Gleason held that under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Royal Canin, a plaintiff may remove federal claims after removal to ensure a state forum. The court noted that because the Second Amended Complaint eliminated any basis for federal-question jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims also disappeared.

The court quoted the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Royal Canin, noting that "the operative pleading no longer supports federal jurisdiction, and the federal court must remand the case to the state court where it started."

Defendants had argued that the First Amended Complaint retained original jurisdiction because Twitchell’s reference to an "Eighth Amendment" violation was a reasonable interpretation of a federal constitutional claim, noting that the Alaska Constitution contains no Eighth Amendment.

However, Twitchell conceded in his reply that the heading to Count III in the First Amended Complaint "errantly referenced the Eighth Amendment" and argued that the Second Amended Complaint corrected this error.

Judge Gleason agreed with Twitchell, finding that the defendants had consented to the amendment and that jurisdiction must be determined based on the face of the Second Amended Complaint.

Citing Royal Canin, the court observed that "by adding or subtracting claims or parties, and thus reframing the suit, that pleading has altered a federal court's authority."