Faulkner v. Ingram et al (INMATE 1)
ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendants' objections (Doc. # 26 ) are OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation (Doc. # 25 ) is ADOPTED; 3. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 9 ) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs Fourth and Fourteenth Amendmen t claims; 4. Plaintiff's claims challenging the constitutionality of the revocation of Plaintiff's probation are DISMISSED without prejudice; 5. Plaintiff's challenges to the constitutionality of his arrest and his claim of perjury are DISMISSED with prejudice; and 6. Plaintiff's state-law claims are REMANDED back to the Circuit Court of Chilton County, Alabama. A final judgment will be entered separately. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 8/16/2017. (kh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
TODD INGRAM, et al.,
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-1241-WKW
On July 11, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 25)
to which Plaintiff did not object and Defendants timely objected in part (Doc. # 26).
While agreeing with the Recommendation that summary judgment for Defendants
is appropriate as to Plaintiff’s federal-law claims, Defendants disagree with the
Recommendation that Plaintiff’s state-law claims be remanded to state court.
Rather, Defendants urge this court to dismiss the state law claims with prejudice.
(Doc. # 26.)
Upon an independent and de novo review of the record and
Recommendation, Defendants’ objections are due to be overruled.
The Recommendation cites Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343,
345 (1988), for the well-established principle that the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction is discretionary and should be determined based on “judicial economy,
convenience, fairness and comity.” (Doc. # 25, at 25–26); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3) (providing that “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim . . . if—(3) the district court has
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).
“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial,
the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over
the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 350 n.7. The
Eleventh Circuit also has “‘encouraged’” district courts to invoke § 1367(c)(3) when
“‘the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.’” Slaughter v. U.S. Dep’t of
Agric., 555 F. App’x 927, 929 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004)). Moreover, where, as here, the “case was
originally filed in state court and removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441, if the district court declines to continue to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction, . . . [the] remaining claim should be remanded to state court.” Cook ex
rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., Fla., 402 F.3d 1092, 1123 (11th
There is no reason to depart from that usual rule here. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
Defendants’ objections (Doc. # 26) are OVERRULED;
The Recommendation (Doc. # 25) is ADOPTED;
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 9) is GRANTED
as to Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims;
Plaintiff’s claims challenging the constitutionality of the revocation of
Plaintiff’s probation are DISMISSED without prejudice;
Plaintiff’s challenges to the constitutionality of his arrest and his claim
of perjury are DISMISSED with prejudice; and
Plaintiff’s state-law claims are REMANDED back to the Circuit Court
of Chilton County, Alabama.
A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 16th day of August, 2017.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF 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?