McNealy v. Becnel et al

Filing 189

ORDER AND REASONS re 167 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs claims against the Becnel Defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Becnel Defendants are dismissed as defendants in this action. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/22/2016. (bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEWTON MCNEALY,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-2181

DARRYL BECNEL, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION: “E” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Darryl J. Becnel and
the Becnel Law Firm (collectively, the “Becnel Defendants”). 1 The Becnel Defendants
contend they should be dismissed from this case because the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over the claims asserted against them. 2 Specifically, the Becnel Defendants
argue the Plaintiff has made “no viable federal allegations” against them, such that
federal-question jurisdiction is not present. Moreover, the Becnel Defendants note that
federal diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction is not present, as they are not diverse from the
Plaintiff. As a result, the Becnel Defendants argue that the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against them.
Plaintiff contends the Court has jurisdiction over his claims against the Becnel
Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Title 28, United States Code, Section 1367 provides
that “in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district
courts shall have 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 United States Constitution.” 3 In this case, the
R. Doc. 167. Plaintiff Newton McNealy opposes the motion. See R. Doc. 172.
R. Doc. 167-1 at 1–2.
3 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
1

2

claims asserted against the Becnel Defendants are rooted in Louisiana state-law concepts
of negligence and legal malpractice. 4 These claims are unlike Plaintiff’s federal claims, in
which Plaintiff alleges various federal civil rights violations. 5 The Court does not see a
sufficient connection between the negligence and legal malpractice claims asserted
against the Becnel Defendants and the alleged federal civil rights violations which provide
the basis for this Court’s original subject-matter jurisdiction. As a result, the Court finds
that it does not have supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against the Becnel
Defendants, as they are not so related to the Plaintiff’s federal claims which are within the
Court’s original jurisdiction such that they form part of the same case or controversy
under Article III of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against
the Becnel Defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Becnel
Defendants are dismissed as defendants in this action.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of March, 2016.

__________ __ _______ __________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4
5

R. Doc. 114 at 4, 24–25.
See generally R. Doc. 114.