Federal Court Remands Prisoner’s Suit to State Court After Plaintiff Deletes Federal Claims

U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason granted a motion to remand the case on Wednesday, finding that the plaintiff, Martin Twitchell, had eliminated the federal basis for jurisdiction by removing references to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from his Second Amended Complaint.

The case began in state court after Twitchell filed a complaint alleging that a Department of Corrections employee at the Anchorage Correctional Complex placed him in a cell without medical assistance or supervision while he was heavily intoxicated, leading to a serious fall. The original complaint included five counts: three state law tort claims, one count alleging an Eighth Amendment violation, and one count alleging negligent training and supervision under state common law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The State of Alaska and the DOC removed the case to federal court, asserting original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Twitchell subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint that attempted to clarify his constitutional claim was based on the Alaska Constitution rather than the U.S. Constitution, though the count heading still referenced the Eighth Amendment. He also removed the reference to § 1983 in his negligence count.

Defendants opposed Twitchell’s motion to remand, arguing that the federal court retained jurisdiction because the First Amended Complaint’s language reasonably implied a federal Eighth Amendment claim, noting that the Alaska Constitution does not contain an Eighth Amendment.

However, with the defendants’ written consent, Twitchell filed a Second Amended Complaint that deleted the Eighth Amendment reference entirely, pleading only a violation of Article I, Section 12 of the Alaska Constitution.

Gleason granted the motion to remand, citing the Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger. In Royal Canin, the Supreme Court held that when a plaintiff amends a complaint after removal to eliminate all federal-law claims, federal-question jurisdiction dissolves, and the case must be remanded to state court.

"The operative pleading no longer supports federal jurisdiction, and the federal court must remand the case to the state court where it started," Gleason wrote, quoting Royal Canin.

The judge noted that Twitchell, as the "master of the complaint," controls the basis for federal jurisdiction. By amending the complaint to remove all federal anchors, Twitchell left only state law claims, which the federal court could no longer hear under supplemental jurisdiction.

"By adding or subtracting claims or parties, and thus reframing the suit, that pleading has altered a federal court’s authority," Gleason wrote, again citing Royal Canin.

The case is now remanded to the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage, to proceed on Twitchell’s state law claims.