SMITH v. COUNTY OF MARION
Filing
23
ENTRY - Plaintiff's 21 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Final judgment consistent with the foregoing shall now issue. That is, the federal claims are to be dismissed with prejudice, while the pendent claims under Indiana state law shall be remanded to the Marion County Superior Court. **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/22/2011.(JD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ERIC D. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF MARION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:11-cv-725-TWP-TAB
Entry Discussing Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider
and Directing Remand of State Law Claims to State Court
I.
The plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the dismissal of the federal claims in Part I of
the Entry issued on June 27, 2011 (Dkt. No. 21, is denied. See Patel v. Gonzales 442
F.3d 1011, 1015-1016 (7th Cir. 2006) (“A motion to reconsider asks that a decision be
reexamined in light of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or an argument that
was overlooked earlier . . . .”). The principal deficiencies in the motion for
reconsideration are that: (1) he sued Marion County, not the agency or individual(s)
responsible for representing the State of Indiana in criminal prosecutions; and (2) he
cannot successfully circumvent the filing restrictions of the Seventh Circuit’s Order of
June 10, 2008, in No. 09-2444 by using an inapt procedure.
II.
The plaintiff has responded to directions in Part II of the Entry issued on June 27,
2011, by asserting that there are state law claims he intends to pursue.
The federal claims, however, have been properly dismissed as legally
insufficient. The general rule under these circumstances is to dismiss the pendent state
law claims. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) ("in the usual
case in which all federal law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to
be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine--judicial economy, convenience,
fairness, and comity--will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the
remaining state-law claims") (citing United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S.
715, 726 (1966)); Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392, 404 (7th Cir. 2007).
The general rule will be followed here, though rather than dismissing the pendent
state law claims that portion of the action must be remanded to the state court from
which the case was first removed.
This court suggests that upon docketing in the state court the parties promptly
bring to that court’s attention the existence and nature of any pending motions.
III.
Final judgment consistent with the foregoing shall now issue. That is, the federal
claims are to be dismissed with prejudice, while the pendent claims under Indiana state
law shall be remanded to the Marion County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
07/22/2011
Date: ________________
________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution:
Eric D. Smith
DOC #112675
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41
P. O. Box 500
Carlisle, IN 47838
Jennifer Lynn Haley
Office of Corporation Counsel
jhaley@indy.gov
Katie J. Kawiecki
Officer of Corporation Counsel
kkawiecki@indy.gov
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?