CHATMAN v. HANCOCK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al

Filing 22

ORDER GRANTING 14 Motion to Remand and 16 Renewed Motion to Remand. The case is remanded to the Superior Court of Hancock County. Ordered by U.S. District Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 1/10/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
STEPHAINE Y. CHATMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
HANCOCK COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, ANNIE INGRAM, DENISE
RANSOM, PAMELA LAWRENCEINGRAM, ANTHONY GILCHRIST,
AZALEE WILLIAMS-ASKEW,
GWENDOLYN JEFFERSON REEVES,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-375 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court are the Plaintiff’s motions to remand (Doc. 14; Doc. 16). For the
following reasons, the motions are GRANTED and this case is REMANDED to the
Superior Court of Hancock County.
On September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed suit in the Superior
Court of Hancock County against her former employer, the Hancock County School
District. (Doc. 1-1). She amended her complaint twice in that court to add claims and
defendants. (Doc. 1-2; Doc. 1-5). The Defendant school district, and, by special
appearance, the individually named Defendants,1 removed the case to this Court on
October 1 because some of the Plaintiff’s claims arose under federal law. (Doc. 1).
The Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s second amended complaint
(Doc. 4), and the Plaintiff moved to remand (Doc. 5) shortly thereafter. The Court
denied the Plaintiff’s motion to remand because of the federal claims in her second

1
The individual Defendants were not served. (Doc. 1, ¶ 4).

amended complaint. (Doc. 6). The Plaintiff then filed a third amended complaint in
which she removed the references to federal law. (Doc. 10).
The Defendants did not contest the Plaintiff’s right to amend her complaint for a
third time. Rather, they filed a new motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Doc.
12). Similarly, the Plaintiff filed new motions to remand, arguing that because she no
longer sought relief pursuant to federal law, this case should be returned to the state
courts for adjudication of her state law claims. (Doc. 14; Doc. 16). The Court agrees
with the Plaintiff. Economy, convenience, fairness, and comity are best served by
remand. Because no basis for original federal jurisdiction presently exists, the Court
has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s
related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). See also Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v.
Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1987) (holding that if an amended complaint drops all federal
claims, the district court has the discretion to remand the case rather than exercise
jurisdiction over only the state law claims).
The Defendants contend the Plaintiff’s third amended complaint still contains
factual allegations that give rise to federal claims even though they may not be labeled
as such. Indeed, the pleading is not artfully drafted in that regard. But the Plaintiff is
not a trained attorney either, and her pro se status confers some leeway upon her.
Moreover, it is clear the Plaintiff intended to abandon any interpretation of her complaint
that suggests she is raising a federal question. She expressly states she has “dropped
the federal claims,” “is no longer interested in the [f]ederal [c]laims filed in the original
and subsequent complaints,” and “would have move[d] to amend her complaint and
drop all federal claims” regardless of the forum. (Doc. 16, ¶ 6). The Court also

-2-

understands the Defendants’ concern that after remand the Plaintiff could attempt to
amend her complaint again to re-allege federal claims, necessitating removal for a
second time. But at this point that eventuality is speculative, and if it occurs, this Court
is well prepared to deal with the Plaintiff in an appropriate manner.
Consequently, the Plaintiff’s motions to remand are GRANTED. This case is
REMANDED to the Superior Court of Hancock County.
SO ORDERED, this 10thday of January, 2014.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-3-