Jutkiewicz v. Roldan

Filing 58

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER OF DISMISSAL.(Pezzarossi, Lisa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
KAREN JUTKIEWICZ,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WANDA ROLDAN, WILLIAM
)
MCGONAGLE, MATHEW STEELE, GAIL
)
LIVINGSTON, BETSY GARCIA, and
)
PHILLIS CORBITT,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Civil Action No.
13-10998-FDS

ORDER
SAYLOR, J.
This is a civil rights action arising out of a housing dispute. Plaintiff Karen Jutkiewicz, a
resident of Boston public housing, has filed a pro se complaint against various Boston Housing
Authority (“BHA”) employees. On June 1, 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.
For the reasons stated on the record, it is highly doubtful that the Court has federalquestion jurisdiction in this action, because the claims appear to raise purely state-law issues.
However, the complaint makes passing references to alleged civil rights and discrimination
violations. Interpreting those as references to 29 U.S.C. § 794, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, and 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the complaint nonetheless does not
contain a plausible allegation under federal law and thus does not satisfy the plausibility standard
that is applied to pleadings; instead, the references to possible federal claims are fleeting and
conclusory at best. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). In any

event, plaintiff has failed “to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
essential to [her] case, and on which [she] will bear the burden of proof at trial.” See Coll v. PB
Diagnostic Sys., 50 F.3d 1115, 1121 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986)). Accordingly, to the extent that plaintiff raises federal claims, summary
judgment will be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
If a “district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it
“may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. “It has consistently
been recognized that [supplemental] jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s
right.” United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). “Certainly, if the
federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense,
the state claims should be dismissed as well.” Id. Because the federal claims will be dismissed,
the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims. Therefore,
any of Jutkiewicz’s claims arising under Massachusetts law will be dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and this case is
hereby DISMISSED.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge

Dated: July 28, 2015

2