GRAPSKI v. DARNELL et al
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AND REMANDING CASE: Plaintiff's claims DISMISSED for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. Court declines to exercise s upplemental jurisdiction over Defendant, BRENDA SPENCER's counterclaim, and case is REMANDED to Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Alachua County, Florida. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE STEPHAN P MICKLE on 6/1/2012. (jws) (Order to Plaintiff as order directed.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CHARLES JAMES GRAPSKI,
Case No. 1:11-cv-00276-SPM-GRJ
SADIE DARNEL, as Sheriff of
Alachua County, Florida,
BRENDA SPENCER, AND
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AND REMANDING CASE
This cause comes before the Court on its own motion. The Court allowed
Plaintiff’s lawyer to withdraw from this case on March 20, 2012. The Court gave
Plaintiff until April 23, 2012, to effect the filing of a notice of appearance by his
new lawyer, file a request for more time, or file a written notice confirming his
intention to represent himself (doc. 30). Plaintiff was also directed to respond to
Defendants’ motions to dismiss and counterclaim. Plaintiff failed to comply with
the Order. The Court then ordered Plaintiff to show good cause by May 22,
2012. why his claims should not be dismissed for failure to obey a court order
and for failure to prosecute. Again, Plaintiff failed to respond. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed.
Another issue to be addressed is the Court’s jurisdiction over the
counterclaim. This Court had original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims because
Defendants were alleged to have violated Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over
Defendant Brenda Spencer’s counterclaim seeking damages pursuant to Florida
law for civil assault and battery and/or negligence. Dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims
eliminates the federal claims in this lawsuit. When a federal claim is dismissed
prior to trial, the Court in its discretion may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has “encouraged district courts to dismiss any
remaining state claims when, as here, the federal claims have been dismissed
prior to trial.” Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004).
The state claims are best resolved by state courts, particularly when the federal
claims are eliminated in the early stages of the lawsuit. Baggett v. First Nat’l
Bank of Gainesville, 117 F.3d 1342, 1353 (11th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed for failure to comply with a court
order and failure to prosecute.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Brenda Spencer’s counterclaim, and the case is remanded to the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Alachua County, Florida.
The clerk shall send a copy of this order to Plaintiff Charles James
Grapski, 116 Zacallo Way, Kissimmee, Florida, 34743, by certified
mail with return-receipt requested. The clerk shall also email a
copy of this order to Plaintiff at email@example.com.
DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2012.
S/ Stephan P. Mickle
Stephan P. Mickle
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?