Murray v. Marks et al

Filing 42

ORDER. Order remanding action to the Superior Court of Muscogee County, Georgia. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 02/02/2012. (ajp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
MICHAEL D. MURRAY,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

BRANDON M. MARKS,

*

CASE NO. 4:10-CV-126 (CDL)
Defendant.

*
O R D E R

Plaintiff
Muscogee

Michael

County

Murray

Prison

in

(“Murray”),

Columbus,

an

inmate

Georgia,

at

alleges

the
that

Defendant Brandon Marks (“Marks”) hit Murray with his car while
Murray

performed

work

Columbus, Georgia.

as

a

trash

collector

for

the

City

of

Murray filed this action in the Superior

Court of Muscogee County, Georgia against Marks for negligence.
Murray’s

Complaint

also

asserted

claims

against

the

City

of

Columbus, Georgia (“Columbus”), the State of Georgia, by and
through the Georgia Department of Corrections (“Department of
Corrections”), and Bill Adamson (“Adamson”), in his individual
and official capacity as Warden of the Muscogee County Prison,
for negligence and for violating Murray’s Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth
(“§ 1983”).

Amendment

rights,

pursuant

to

42

U.S.C.

§

1983

Columbus and Adamson subsequently filed a notice of

removal with this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), asserting the

Court has original federal question jurisdiction over Murray’s
§ 1983

claims

in

accordance

28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3).
dismissal

without

with

28

which

dismissed.

the

prejudice

Court

§

1331

and

After removal, Murray stipulated to the
of

Defendants

Department of Corrections, and Adamson.
over

U.S.C.

had

original

Columbus,

the

As a result, the claims
jurisdiction

have

been

Presently pending before the Court are State Farm

Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s (“State Farm”) Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29) and Marks’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 26).
Court

declines

to

For the reasons explained below, the

exercise

supplemental

Murray’s remaining state law claims.

jurisdiction

over

Thus, the Court remands

this action to the Superior Court of Muscogee County, Georgia.
BACKGROUND
The factual allegations contained in Murray’s Complaint are
as follows.

Murray performed work as a trash collector during

his incarceration as an inmate in the custody of the Department
of Corrections and housed at the Muscogee County Prison.

Defs.

Bill Adamson & Columbus Georgia’s Notice of Removal [hereinafter
Notice of Removal], Attach. 1, Compl. for Damages ¶ 10, ECF No.
1-1 at 8 of 29 [hereinafter Compl.].

While collecting trash one

day, Murray was positioning a trash can on the rear of a trash
truck

that

was

stopped

in

traffic,

and

Marks

drove

his

automobile into the rear of the truck and pinned Murray between

2

the two vehicles.

Id. ¶ 11.

As a result of the accident,

Murray’s legs were crushed and eventually amputated.
Murray’s

Complaint

alleges

that

Marks

Id. ¶ 12.

is

liable

for

negligence because Marks failed to keep a proper look out in the
direction he was traveling, failed to control his automobile,
followed too

closely, and failed to stop,

turn or otherwise

divert his automobile to avoid striking Murray. Id. ¶¶ 27-29.
Murray

further

Department

of

alleged

in

Corrections

his

Complaint

and

Adamson

that

Columbus,

negligently

failed

the
to

provide him with adequate training prior to assigning him to
trash

collection

duties

and

negligently

failed

to

provide

traffic control and adequate safeguards to prevent the accident.
Id. ¶¶ 24-25.

Murray’s Complaint also included claims against

Columbus,

Department

the

of

Corrections,

and

Adamson

for

violating his Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by
forcing him to collect trash in a hazardous manner and alleged
they are liable under § 1983.

Id. ¶¶ 17-22.

State

uninsured

Farm

as

his

purported

Murray served

motorist

insurance

carrier, and he claims uninsured motorist coverage exists for
the accident under insurance policies issued by State Farm to
his sister and her husband.
Murray initially filed his Complaint in the Superior Court
of Muscogee County.

Columbus and Adamson subsequently removed

the action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), arguing the

3

Court

has

original

jurisdiction

§ 1983

claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3).

Notice

of Removal 1-2, ECF No. 1.
Murray

stipulated

Columbus,

the

to

the

Department

over

Murray’s

Following the removal of the action,
dismissal
of

without

Corrections,

prejudice
and

of

Adamson.

Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice, ECF No. 35.
State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, which is
presently pending before the Court, arguing Murray is not an
insured under the policies issued to his sister because he does
not reside primarily with her and therefore does not qualify as
a resident relative under the policies.

Br. in Supp. of Def.

State Farm Mutual Insurance Company’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No.
30.

Marks filed a motion for summary judgment as well, arguing

that if the Court determines that Murray is not an insured under
the policies, then Marks is not subject to further liability
because Murray executed a limited liability release discharging
Marks of liability except to the extent that other insurance
coverage exists to cover Murray’s claims.
Brandon

Marks’s

Mot.

for

Summ.

J.,

Br. in Supp. of Def.

ECF

No.

27.

Murray

acknowledges that if he is not entitled to uninsured motorist
coverage under the policies issued by State Farm, he has no
additional claims against Marks.

Pl.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Def.

Marks’s Mot. for Summ J. 1, ECF No. 36.

4

DISCUSSION
“Problems

concerning

subject

matter

jurisdiction

should be raised sua sponte by the court.”

.

.

.

Ingram v. Sch. Bd.

of Miami-Dade Cnty., 167 F. App’x 107, 108 (11th Cir. 2006) (per
curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).

An action filed in

“a State court of which the district courts of the United States
have

original

jurisdiction,

may

be

removed”

to

the

district

court “for the district and division embracing the place where
such

action

is

pending.”

28

U.S.C.

§

1441(a).

A

federal

district court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.”

28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A district court has authority to

exercise “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that
are so related to claims in the action within such original
jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy
under

Article

III

of

the

Unites

States

Constitution.

Such

supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the
joinder

or

intervention

of

additional

parties.”

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
Adamson and Columbus properly removed the action to this Court
because Murray asserted federal § 1983 claims against them for
allegedly violating his Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights.

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Murray’s

5

negligence claims because those claims and his § 1983 claims
arise

out

of

accident.

a

common

nucleus

of

operative

facts—the

car

A district court, however, may decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the district court
has

dismissed

all

claims

over

which

jurisdiction.”

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

exercise

discretion,

this

the

it

has

original

In deciding whether to

district

court

weighs

the

“considerations of judicial economy, convenience[,] fairness to
litigants, and comity.”

Ingram, 167 F. App’x at 108 (alteration

in original) (internal quotation marks omitted.).
Murray
Columbus,

stipulated
the

to

Department

the

dismissal

of

without

Corrections,

prejudice
and

of

Adamson,

eliminating from the action Murray’s federal § 1983 claims over
which the Court has original jurisdiction.

The remaining claims

before the

negligence cause of

Court

are

action against Marks

Murray’s

state law

and his derivative state law claim for

uninsured motorist benefits against State Farm.
issue

on

summary

judgment

of

whether

Murray

is

The disputed
entitled

to

uninsured motorist insurance coverage hinges on interpretations
of Georgia law.

“[S]tate courts, not federal courts, should be

the final arbiters of state law.”
omitted).

Id. (internal quotation marks

Although dispositive motions are currently pending

before the Court, district courts are encouraged “to dismiss any
remaining state claims when, as here, the federal claims have

6

been dismissed prior to trial.”
F.

App’x

915,

quotation

919

marks

(11th

Murphy v. City of Aventura, 383

Cir.

omitted).

2010)

The

(per

Court

curiam)

finds

this

(internal
admonition

particularly apt where, as here, the resolution of the pending
motion depends purely upon an interpretation of state law.
Court

also

finds

that

neither

judicial

dictates a different result.

economy

nor

The

fairness

The Court anticipates that the

parties, upon remand, will be able to easily submit to the state
court the same briefs that have been filed here, and that the
remand court should be able to efficiently rule upon the pending
motions.

Furthermore,

there is

nothing

to

suggest

that the

state court will be unable to render a fair decision under the
applicable state law.

Based on these considerations, the Court

declines

supplemental

to

negligence

exercise

claim

against

Marks

jurisdiction

and

his

over

derivative

Murray’s
state

law

claim for uninsured motorist benefits against State Farm.
Finally, the Court observes that diversity of citizenship
has not been asserted as a basis for the Court’s exercise of
original jurisdiction in this action.

The notice of removal

does not allege that diversity exists and omits
allegations
jurisdiction.

supporting
See

the

Notice

of

Court’s
Removal.

exercise

any factual

of

Further,

diversity
Plaintiff’s

Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts for the Court to
conclude it has diversity jurisdiction over Murray’s negligence

7

claim against Marks.

See generally Compl. (failing to make any

allegation regarding Murray’s citizenship and alleging only the
residency of Marks).
or

established

finds

that

Because jurisdiction has not been asserted

based

remand

in

on

diversity

this

case

considerations explained above.

of
is

citizenship,
warranted

the

based

Court

on

the

See Cook ex. rel. Estate of

Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., Fla., 402 F.3d 1092, 1123
(11th Cir. 2005) (“Because this 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,

[plaintiff’s]

remaining

claim should be remanded to state court.”).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that this action
should be remanded and directs the Clerk to remand this action
to the Superior Court of Muscogee County, Georgia.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of February, 2012.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8