TURNER v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
Entry Granting Motion to Dismiss Federal Claims and Remanding Case to State Court - Accordingly, the Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, and this action is remanded to Marion Superior Court.An Order of Remand and Dismissal consistent with this Entry shall issue. (See Entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/1/2017. (JLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
KEVIN S. TURNER,
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
Entry Granting Motion to Dismiss Federal Claims and Remanding Case to State Court
This action was removed by the defendants from Marion Superior Court to this Court.
Federal jurisdiction was predicated on the plaintiff’s federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985.
Presently before the Court is the plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his federal claims (Counts
2 and 3 of his Complaint) and proceed only with his state-law negligence claims. The deadline for
the defendants to respond to this motion has passed, and they have not responded. The plaintiff’s
unopposed motion to dismiss his federal claims, [dkt. 6], is therefore granted, and his federal
claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Now that the plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court must decide whether
it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state-law negligence claims. The
Court ultimately has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Carlsbad Tech.,
Inc. v. HIF BIO, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (“The district courts may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed
all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .”). When deciding whether to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction, “‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every
stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City
of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ.
v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). “When all federal claims in a suit in federal court are
dismissed before trial, the presumption is that the court will relinquish federal jurisdiction over
any supplemental state-law claims.” Al’s Serv. Ctr. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 720, 727
(7th Cir. 2010).
The relevant factors clearly weigh in favor of the Court relinquishing jurisdiction over this
action. Most importantly, no action has been taken by this Court regarding the plaintiff’s claims.
Almost immediately after the defendants removed this action to federal court, the plaintiff moved
to dismiss his federal claims. Accordingly, the Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction
over the state-law claims, and this action is remanded to Marion Superior Court.
An Order of Remand and Dismissal consistent with this Entry shall issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Electronic distribution to counsel of record via CM/ECF and by U.S. mail to:
KEVIN S. TURNER
INDIANA STATE PRISON
New Castle "Correctional Facility (NCN)
INDIANA STATE PRISON
One Park Row
MICHIGAN CITY, IN 46360
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?