Humphrey et al v. The City of Headland et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: (1) the federal claims asserted in the original Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice; (2) the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claim, and the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 USC 1367(c)(3), without prejudice pursuant to 28 USC 1367(c)(4); (3) final judgment will be entered in accordance with this order. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 9/13/12. (djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
VELMA JEAN HUMPHREY and
ROBERT LOWE, individually and as
personal representative of the ESTATE OF
O’PATRICK HUMPHREY and on behalf of
O’Patrick Humphrey’s SURVIVORS and the
BENEFICIARIES of O’Patrick Humphrey’s
TONY SMITH, individually and in his
) Case No. 1:12-cv-366-WHA
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the court on a Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint for Failure to
State a Claim (Doc. # 18). In their original Complaint, the Plaintiffs brought federal law and
state law claims against multiple Defendants. On July 2, 2012, this court entered an order
dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claims against all Defendants without prejudice and giving the
Plaintiffs until July 16, 2012, to file an Amended Complaint or have the federal claims dismissed
with prejudice. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. # 17) that abandoned the
federal claims and brought a single state law claim against Defendant Smith pursuant to
Alabama’s Wrongful Death Act. See Ala. Code § 6-5-410. On July 30, 2012, Defendant Smith
moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The Plaintiffs’ state law claim is before the court on the basis of supplemental
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Because the Plaintiffs’ federal law claims were dismissed
without prejudice but with leave to amend, and the Plaintiffs have not alleged a federal claim in
their Amended Complaint, the court will now dismiss the federal claims with prejudice and
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c)(3). See Mergens v. Dreyfoos, 166 F.3d 1114, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999) (noting that courts
in the Eleventh Circuit are encouraged to dismiss state law claims if the federal claims are
dismissed prior to trial).
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The federal claims asserted in the original Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice.
2. The court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claim, and the
Amended Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).
3. Final Judgment will be entered in accordance with this Order.
Done this 13th day of September, 2012.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?