Smith et al v Wellsville, Kansas, City of et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 43 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The court dismisses the federal claims for failure to state a claim. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice. Signed by District Judge John W. Broomes on 11/19/2020. (sz)
Case 2:19-cv-02431-JWB-KGG Document 73 Filed 11/19/20 Page 1 of 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MARC S. SMITH and
Case No. 19-2431-JWB
CITY OF WELLSVILLE, KANSAS, et al.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 43). The motion
has been fully briefed and is ripe for decision. (Docs. 44, 50, 55.) For the reasons set forth herein,
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Background and Facts
The following facts are taken from Plaintiffs’ amended complaint.1 (Doc. 42.) Defendants
have also submitted some evidence that they claim is referenced in and central to the complaint.
See Alcarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting that a court may
consider documents referred to in the complaint if they are central to plaintiff’s claims and
undisputed). The parties agree that the court may consider four of the six exhibits submitted.
Plaintiffs argue that the court should not consider the documents from the city council meetings of
January 9 and January 30, 2019. In reply, the city defendants conceded this point, so the court will
Magistrate Judge Gale has recently entered two orders (Docs. 71 and 72) affecting this case. However, since neither
affects the outcome in this order, the court will refer to the parties as they were aligned in the amended complaint
Case 2:19-cv-02431-JWB-KGG Document 73 Filed 11/19/20 Page 2 of 15
not consider those two attachments. With these standards in mind, the court now turns to the facts
of the case—viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs purchased their residence in 1999 and paid the City of Wellsville a deposit for a
water meter serving the property.2 Plaintiffs own the private water service line, which extends
about 1,000 feet from the meter to the property. The Whalens, Dighans, and Sparks (“Neighbor
Defendants”) own property near Plaintiffs. At various times, they (or their predecessors) have
tapped into Plaintiffs’ water line. Plaintiffs and the Neighbor Defendants do not have a written
agreement about the payment of bills or other costs associated with the water line. Disputes have
arisen over payments and measurement of the water used.
In 2018, Plaintiffs talked to a realtor about selling their house. The realtor advised them
that they would need to disclose the water-line situation. During the winter of 2018 to 2019,
plaintiffs asked the City of Wellsville for help with the situation, but the city attorney and others
told them that it was not a city matter because it was a private water line. Plaintiffs hired counsel,
who also contacted the city attorney and was told the homeowners would have to resolve the issue
Based on these representations, Plaintiffs’ counsel prepared a “Declaration of Woodson
Water Board,” which would serve as an agreement to share ownership and costs of the water line.
Counsel submitted the proposed declaration to the city attorney to obtain consent to transfer
ownership of the meter and line to the Woodson Water Board.
A few weeks later, on January 9, 2019, the city council voted not to transfer Plaintiffs’
water meter to the Woodson Water Board. On January 30, Plaintiff Regina Smith, Plaintiffs’
counsel, and the Neighbor Defendants attended the Wellsville City Council meeting. The mayor,
Plaintiffs actually allege that the water line and meter are in Marc Smith’s name only. For ease of reference
throughout this opinion, however, the court will continue to use the plural term “plaintiffs.”
Case 2:19-cv-02431-JWB-KGG Document 73 Filed 11/19/20 Page 3 of 15
council, city attorney, and the Certified Operator of the Wellsville Water System, Darien Kerr,
went into executive session. When they returned, the mayor announced:
a) The Smiths could not remove the Defendant Neighbors from the water
line, or cut off their water;
b) The Defendant Neighbors did not have to contribute to Smiths’ attorney
fees for preparation of the Declaration;
c) The City would sell the Defendant Neighbors city meters at the City’s cost
so they could attach them to Plaintiffs’ Water Line;
d) The City had no obligation to install an up-to-code water main to serve
these four water customers;
e) The City did not care about the Smiths’ problem of trying to sell their
The Defendant Neighbors were to present a written agreement to the City
Attorney for his review, which the Plaintiffs were not invited to be a part of.
(Doc. 42 at 7.) On June 28, 2019, the building inspector for the City of Wellsville—Pat Burton—
contacted Plaintiffs on behalf of the city and the mayor, and advised Plaintiffs:
a) They needed to give Plaintiffs’ Water Line to the City so meters could be
attached for the Defendant Neighbors;
b) That the City would take the line if Plaintiffs did not give it to the City;
c) That the Plaintiffs would have to pay for a new meter to be installed at
their property even though they already have a meter; and
d) The Defendant Neighbors were really upset with the Mayor and City for
not resolving this dispute.
(Id. at 8.)
The city has refused to install a water main that complies with current standards to serve
Plaintiffs’ property and the Neighbor Defendants’ properties. Unhappy with this result, Plaintiffs
filed suit, claiming that the City of Wellsville, Mayor Lytle, and Kerr (the “City Defendants”),
violated their constitutional rights. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that these Defendants violated
their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection, to be free from unconstitutional takings,
and to substantive due process. They also claim that both the City Defendants and Neighbor
Defendants violated state law in several ways.
Case 2:19-cv-02431-JWB-KGG Document 73 Filed 11/19/20 Page 4 of 15
Standard of Review
The court will grant a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss only when the factual allegations fail to
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). Although the factual allegations need not be detailed, the claims must set forth entitlement
to relief “through more than labels, conclusions and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action.” In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 534 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1216
(D. Kan. 2008). The allegations must contain facts sufficient to state a claim that is plausible,
rather than merely conceivable. Id. “All well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory
allegations, must be taken as true.” Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810, 813 (10th Cir. 1984); see
also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court construes any reasonable inferences
from these facts in favor of the plaintiff. Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1252 (10th Cir. 2006).
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials who perform
discretionary government functions from liability for civil damages and the obligation to defend
the action. See Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911, 914 (1997); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800,
818 (1982). This immunity is only applicable, however, if the official’s conduct did not violate
clearly established constitutional or statutory rights that would have been known by a reasonable
government official. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818; McFall v. Bednar, 407 F.3d 1081, 1087 (10th
Cir. 2005). “In resolving a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, a court must consider
whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right, and
whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”
Case 2:19-cv-02431-JWB-KGG Document 73 Filed 11/19/20 Page 5 of 15
Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152, 1164 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Leverington v. City of Colo.
Springs, 643 F.3d 719, 732 (10th Cir. 2011)). The court may take up either inquiry first. Pearson
v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). When considering whether a right was clearly established,
the law must be particularized to the facts of the case. White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017)
(citation omitted). “The precedent must be clear enough that every reasonable official would
interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply.” District of Columbia. v.
Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 590, 199 L.Ed.2d 453 (2018) (emphasis added); see also Mullenix v. Luna,
136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015) (explaining that right must be “sufficiently clear that every reasonable
official would have understood that what he [or she] is doing violates that right” (emphasis added)).
General statements of the law are insufficient. White, 137 S. Ct. at 552 (citation omitted).
Clearly Established Law
Plaintiffs identify four cases to show that the law was clearly established. First, Village of
Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000). This case established, at a general level, that plaintiffs
may bring equal protection claims on behalf of a “class of one.” In other words, a plaintiff may
allege an equal protection claim by claiming to have been intentionally treated differently from
other similarly situated individuals without a rational basis. Id. at 564. But in Olech, a village
demanded a 33-foot easement to connect the plaintiff’s property to the municipal water supply
when it only required a 15-foot easement from other similarly situated property owners. Id. at 565.
This factual situation does not provide specific guidance to the individual City Defendants in this
Second, Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535
U.S. 302 (2002). Plaintiffs use this case to show that their takings claim was clearly established.
But the case involved a moratorium on development while developing a land-use plan. Id. at 306.
Case 2:19-cv-02431-JWB-KGG Document 73 Filed 11/19/20 Page 6 of 15
It does not speak to the situation here—where the mayor declared that he would let others attach
to plaintiff’s private water line but did not prevent Plaintiff from continuing to use the line.
Third, Clajon Product Corp. v. Petera, 70 F.3d 1566 (10th Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs claim that
this case shows “it is clearly established that a regulation goes too far so as to effect a regulatory
taking if (1) it deprives an individual of all economically beneficial use of his or her property; or
(2) it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests.” (Doc. 50, at 17.) In this case,
however, there is no regulation alleged, and Plaintiffs have also not alleged that they have been
deprived of all economically beneficial use of their property.
And fourth, Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).
Plaintiffs state that “the standards set forth in [this case] should have put these Defendants on
notice that their actions were in violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.” (Doc. 50, at 17.)
This statement falls far short of demonstrating to the court that the rights at issue are clearly
established. Plaintiffs failed to identify any similar facts or situations that were sufficiently similar
to put Defendants Lytle and Kerr on notice that their actions were unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs ask this court to apply a sliding scale to determine whether the law was clearly
established, citing A.M. v. Holmes, 830 F.3d 1123, 1135 (10th Cir. 2016). This sliding scale test
has been called into question recently, see McCoy v. Meyers, 887 F.3d 1034, 1053 n.22 (10th Cir.
2018), but the Tenth Circuit has not yet decided whether it conflicts with Supreme Court authority.
It may still be that if actions lean more toward “obviously egregious,” less specificity is required
to clearly establish a violation. See A.M., 830 F.3d at 1135–36 (citations omitted). But here,
Defendants’ actions—while perhaps ill-advised—fall nowhere near an “obviously egregious”
Case 2:19-cv-02431-JWB-KGG Document 73 Filed 11/19/20 Page 7 of 15
Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that Defendants Lytle and Kerr should have
known that their actions violated the constitution based on clearly established law.
Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity for the claims against them in their
Violation of Constitutional Right
Because the court has determined that no clearly established law put Defendants Lytle and
Kerr on notice that their actions were unconstitutional, the court need not consider at this time
whether Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that their actions violated the Constitution.
Monell Liability Applied to the City of Wellsville
In Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, the United States Supreme Court
held that a municipality can be liable under § 1983 for violations of civil rights if the violation is
the result of a “policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and
promulgated by that body’s officers.”
436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).
This “official policy”
requirement distinguishes the act of the municipality from acts of the employees of the
municipality, as municipal liability cannot derive from a theory of respondeat superior. See
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479–80 (1986). A government, therefore, cannot be
sued under § 1983 for injuries caused by its employees; rather, liability only attaches “when
execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose
edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflict the injury.” Monell, 436 U.S.
at 694; City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 123 (1988) (holding that Monell liability
attaches only “for acts for which the municipality itself is actually responsible, ‘that is, acts which
the municipality has officially sanctioned or ordered.’”). Only municipal officials who have “final
policymaking authority” are subject to Monell liability, and the challenged action “must have been
Case 2:19-cv-02431-JWB-KGG Document 73 Filed 11/19/20 Page 8 of 15
taken pursuant to a policy adopted by the official or officials responsible under state law for making
policy . . .” Id.
To establish liability under Monell, Plaintiffs must show “(1) the existence of a municipal
custom or policy and (2) a direct casual link between the custom or policy and the violation
alleged.” Hollingsworth v. Hill, 110 F.3d 733, 742 (1997). Municipal liability can be based on
(1) a formal regulation or policy statement, (2) an informal custom that amounts to a “widespread
practice that, although not authorized or written by law or express municipal policy, is ‘so
permanent and well settled as to constitute a ‘custom or usage’ with the force of law,’” (3) the
decisions of employees with final policymaking authority, or (4) “the ratification by such final
policymakers of the decision—and the basis for them—of subordinates to whom authority was
delegated subject to these policymakers’ review and approval.” Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks
Charter Acad., 602 F.3d 1175, 1189 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 123–27;
Monell, 436 U.S. at 690–91; Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 480–81).
Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that “there are limited circumstances in which
an allegation of a ‘failure to train’ can be the basis for liability under § 1983.” City of Canton,
Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 387 (1989) (rejecting the contention that only unconstitutional
policies are actionable under § 1983). Municipal liability may be based on a failure to train or
failure to supervise employees, but only if that failure results from “deliberate indifference” to the
injuries that may be caused. Brammer-Hoelter, 602 F.3d at 1189.
In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege the following relating to their Monell claims:
65. The unconstitutional affirmative final policy decisions and policies,
practices, customs and procedures of the City of Wellsville, the Mayor and
Darien Kerr include but [sic] not limited to:
a) The City Council deciding on January 9, 2019, that the name on Marc
Smith’s water meter could not be changed to the Woodson Water Board;
Case 2:19-cv-02431-JWB-KGG Document 73 Filed 11/19/20 Page 9 of 15
b) The Mayor announcing on January 30, 2019 after executive session that
Plaintiffs could not remove Defendant Neighbors from Plaintiffs’ Water Line
and that Defendant Neighbors could connect city meters to it;
c) Intentionally or recklessly allowing Defendant Neighbors to cross-connect
their water lines to Plaintiffs’ in violation of city ordinances;
d) Allowing Defendant Neighbors to pay directly to the City what they claimed
were their purported portions of Plaintiffs’ monthly water bills;
e) Not requiring Defendant Neighbors to pay their purported shares of water
bills to Plaintiffs so that all parties could reconcile and agree on each user’s
proportionate share of each water bill;
f) Refusing to disclose to Plaintiffs the amount paid by each Defendant
Neighbor on each month’s bill resulting in Plaintiffs paying more than their
proportionate share to make up any shortfalls;
g) Ignoring the legal responsibilities of Plaintiffs to pay the monthly water bills
because the meter was in Marc Smith[’s] name;
h) A policy, practice, custom or procedure of failing to enforce the city
ordinances prohibiting cross-connections and requiring each customer to have
i) Failing to provide equivalent water main lines to Plaintiffs’ property;
j) Publicly declaring control of Plaintiffs’ Water Line so that Defendant
Neighbors could attach meters to it;
k) Publicly humiliating, disparaging and maligning Plaintiffs and encouraging
Defendant Neighbors and other employees to do so;
l) Engaging in a conflict of interest by concealing the City’s dealings with Scott
Sparks and his employer, Mid State Rentals, LLC, when ruling on Water Line
66. In addition to making unconstitutional final policy decisions, policies,
practices, customs and procedures, Mayor Lytle, Darien Kerr and the City of
Wellsville have also failed to provide adequate training to employees in the
a) To have a regular program for the detection and elimination of crossconnections as required by K.A.R. 28-15-18 (f) and to implement such a
b) To deal exclusively with Plaintiffs and similarly situated water customers
whose names meters are issued to as the legally responsible party;
c) Accepting payments from non-metered Defendant Neighbors on Plaintiffs’
bill then refusing to disclose to Plaintiffs how much was paid placing Plaintiffs
in an untenable position;
d) Allowing employees to engage in conduct contrary to the City’s stated
position the Plaintiffs’ Water Line was a private water line and that all matters
relating thereto would have to be worked out between Plaintiffs and Defendant
e) Failing to train employees that the exact same amount paid by a Defendant
Neighbor each month could not possibly be an accurate accounting of a
propionate share of each month’s water bill;
Case 2:19-cv-02431-JWB-KGG Document 73 Filed 11/19/20 Page 10 of 15
f) Following the advice of the City Attorney and Certified Operator;
g) Allowing representatives to conduct City business without disclosing
conflicts of interest and without recusal.
(Doc. 42 at 14–16.)
Plaintiffs allege that the customs and policies of the city unconstitutionally injured them.
They further allege that Defendants Lytle and Kerr had final policy-making authority for the city.
Assuming, without deciding, that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged city customs and policies, the
court must address the constitutional questions that it did not need to resolve above—that is,
whether any alleged custom or policy resulted in a constitutional violation. The court therefore
reviews below whether Plaintiffs have stated underlying constitutional violations.
Equal Protection Claim
To state an equal protection claim, Plaintiffs must allege comparators—others similarly
situated in all material respects to Plaintiffs. Planned Parenthood Ass’n of Utah v. Herbert, 828
F.3d 1245, 1253 (D. Kan. 2016). Plaintiffs allege that they have been treated differently from
other city water customers. But they do not allege that they have been treated differently from
others in similar situations: (1) others who live outside the city limits; (2) and receive water through
a private service line; (3) that has, at some prior time, been tapped into by neighbors without the
knowledge of the city. Plaintiffs’ broad, generic allegations of unequal treatment are insufficient
to plausibly state an equal protection claim.
A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment taking claim when the government
takes his property without paying just compensation. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania,
139 S. Ct. 2162, 2167 (2019). The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states
through the Fourteenth Amendment. Mur v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017). A taking may
Case 2:19-cv-02431-JWB-KGG Document 73 Filed 11/19/20 Page 11 of 15
occur through physically depriving the owner of the property or by placing such a restrictive
regulation upon the owner they essentially are deprived of the ability to use the property. Palazzolo
v. Rhode Island, 553 U.S. 606, 617 (2001) (internal citations omitted).
There are a few problems with Plaintiffs’ takings claim. However, the most glaring issue
is that Plaintiffs still have their private water line. They still receive water at their house. Indeed,
even the fact that the neighbors are also using Plaintiffs’ water line has not changed as a result of
the actions of anyone acting on behalf of the city. One of Plaintiffs’ complaints was that their
neighbors were not properly measuring their water usage for payment to the city. But the city has
offered to provide meters at cost to remedy that situation. To date, Defendant Lytle’s declarations
about Plaintiffs’ water service line have apparently gone unenforced, and there are no allegations
that a physical taking has occurred.
Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts
demonstrating a constitutional taking.
Substantive Due Process
Under the current standards for evaluating a substantive due process claim, as articulated
by the Tenth Circuit and the Supreme Court, “[i]n order to prevail on their substantive due process
claim, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the state acted in a manner that shocks the conscience.”
Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567, 571 (10th Cir. 1995). “The Due Process Clause is not a guarantee
against incorrect or ill-advised [government] decisions.” Id. at 573. Negligent conduct is
insufficient to expose the government to liability; a “§ 1983 violation must be predicated on a state
action manifesting one of two traditional forms of wrongful intent . . . (1) an intent to harm; or (2)
an intent to place a person unreasonably at risk of harm.” Id. The second form covers reckless
actions and includes “when a state actor was aware of a known or obvious risk that was so great
that it was highly probable that serious harm would follow and he or she proceeded in conscious
Case 2:19-cv-02431-JWB-KGG Document 73 Filed 11/19/20 Page 12 of 15
and unreasonable disregard of the consequences.” Id. at 574. In addition to showing culpability,
a plaintiff “must demonstrate a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of potential or actual
harm that is truly conscience shocking.” Id.
Plaintiffs’ allegations do not meet this high standard. For instance, Plaintiffs’ assert their
due process rights were violated because the city failed to reveal a business relationship between
Defendant Sparks’ employer, Mid State Rentals, and the city that violated the city’s code of ethics.
(Doc. 42 at 12.) However, they fail to articulate facts illustrating how the business relationship
between Sparks’ employer and the city benefits Sparks or amounts to a constitutional violation. A
violation of an internal policy—code of ethics—does not equate to a constitutional taking or
another constitutional claim. These allegations of state action in the complaint do not rise to the
level of a constitutional due process violation.
Additionally, Plaintiffs have alleged a state law claim for inverse condemnation. The
existence of a state law remedy precludes a substantive due process claim when the only loss
alleged is deprivation of a property interest and there is no independent constitutional violation.
Lee v. City of Chicago, 330 F.3d 456, 467 (7th Cir. 2003). For these reasons, the court determines
that Plaintiffs have failed to state a constitutional violation of substantive due process.
Failure to Train
A policy of inadequately training employees may result in constitutional liability only
where the “city’s failure to train reflects deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its
inhabitants.” Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 392 (1989).
This rule is most consistent with our admonition in Monell, 436 U.S., at 694,
98 S.Ct., at 2037, and Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 326, 102 S.Ct.
445, 454, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981), that a municipality can be liable under § 1983
only where its policies are the “moving force [behind] the constitutional
violation.” Only where a municipality's failure to train its employees in a
relevant respect evidences a “deliberate indifference” to the rights of its
Case 2:19-cv-02431-JWB-KGG Document 73 Filed 11/19/20 Page 13 of 15
inhabitants can such a shortcoming be properly thought of as a city “policy or
custom” that is actionable under § 1983. As Justice BRENNAN's opinion in
Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483–484, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 1300–1301, 89
L.Ed.2d 452 (1986) (plurality) put it: “[M]unicipal liability under § 1983
attaches where—and only where—a deliberate choice to follow a course of
action is made from among various alternatives” by city policymakers. See also
Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S., at 823, 105 S.Ct., at 2436 (opinion of
REHNQUIST, J.). Only where a failure to train reflects a “deliberate” or
“conscious” choice by a municipality—a “policy” as defined by our prior
cases—can a city be liable for such a failure under § 1983.
Canton, 489 U.S. at 389.
Plaintiffs’ allegations do not meet this standard. They allege that the city attorney and the
mayor took different positions on Plaintiffs’ water line dispute. This allegation does not plausibly
state a claim for failure to train. And whether the city enforces its code prohibiting crossconnections is irrelevant here. The ordinance prohibits connection of a private water supply (such
as a well) with the city’s water supply system. (Doc. 13-6 at 2) (“No person shall establish or
permit to be established or maintain or permit to be maintained, any cross-connection whereby a
private, auxiliary, or emergency water supply other than the regular water supply of the city may
enter the supply and distributing system of the city unless specifically approved by the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment and the governing body.”). Although Plaintiffs have a
private water line, it is not a private source of water. Finally, Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged
that either Defendant Lytle or Kerr actually supervised the employees who took the alleged actions
of accepting payments, etc. “[T]he defendants’ role must be more than one of abstract authority
over individuals who actually committed a constitutional violation.” Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523
F.3d 1147, 1162 (10th Cir. 2008). For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
for failure to train.
Case 2:19-cv-02431-JWB-KGG Document 73 Filed 11/19/20 Page 14 of 15
State Law Claims
Because the court dismisses Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the court “has dismissed all claims
over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Plaintiffs and Defendants are not
diverse, and any claims remaining in Plaintiffs’ complaint arise under state law. Although the
court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, the court declines
to do so. See Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1248 (10th Cir. 2011) (“When all federal
claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction
over any remaining state claims.”) (quoting Smith v. City of Enid ex rel Enid City Comm’n, 149
F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir. 1998)). There are no compelling circumstances that justify this court
retaining jurisdiction. In addition, this case is in the early stages as a scheduling order has not been
entered and no formal discovery has been exchanged. Accordingly, the court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.
The actions of the City Defendants in this case—even taking Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded
allegations as true—do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. And most certainly, the
law on any such alleged violation was not clearly established. Plaintiffs have thus failed to state a
plausible claim for relief on their federal claims. As for Plaintiffs’ claims under state law, the court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and accordingly dismisses them
Case 2:19-cv-02431-JWB-KGG Document 73 Filed 11/19/20 Page 15 of 15
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 43) is
GRANTED. The court dismisses the federal claims for failure to state a claim. The court declines
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses them
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of November, 2020.
____s/ John W. Broomes___________
JOHN W. BROOMES
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?