Morris v. Humphrey et al

Filing 67

ORDER REMANDING case to Cleveland County District Court. Signed by Honorable Lee R. West on 2/2/15. (kw)

J:ILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JUSTIN MORRIS, as administrator for
the Estate o f George Morris,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KEITH L. HUMPHREY, in his official
and individual capacities as Chief of
Norman Police Department, et aI.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)

)

)

FEB - 2 2015
CARMELITAREEDER SHiNN. CLERK

Ui;018T. COU'l)WESTeRN:ili~

No. CIV-14-497-W

ORDER
Plaintiff Justin Morris, as administratorfor the Estate of George Morris, brought this
action in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma, on April 21 ,2014, and named
multiple defendants. See Doc. 1-4. In his state court petition, Morris alleged that law
enforcement officers used unreasonable and excessive force on Morris' father, George
Morris ("G Morris"), and he sought monetary relief under title 42, section 1983 ofthe United
States Code and state law against, inter alia, the officers and their employers, City of
Norman ("City") and the Oklahoma Highway Patrol ("OHP"), a division of Oklahoma
Department of Public Safety.
The action was removed on May 15, 2014, see Doc. 1, and the matter came before
the Court on various motions. The only claims that remain for resolution are Morris' state
law claims against the City and OHP. See Doc. 55; Doc. 59 at 2.
This Court's basic statutory grants of subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in title
28, sections 1331 and 1332 of the United States Code.

Section 1331 provides for

"federal-question" jurisdiction; section 1332 provides for "diversity of citizenship"
jurisdiction.

~,Arbaugh

v. Y & H Corporation, 546 U.S. 500,513 (2006).

Section 1331 jurisdiction is properly invoked when a plaintiff pleads a colorable
claim "arising under" the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1332

jurisdiction is properly invoked when a plaintiff presents a claim between parties of diverse
citizenship and that claim exceeds the required jurisdictional amount. exclusive of interest
and costs. In light of Morris' section 1983 claims, the removing defendants relied on
section 1331 in their Notice of Removal. See Doc. 1 at 2,

~

3.

This Court's subject matter jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal; the
Court may therefore retain jurisdiction over a properly removed matter even when, as in
this case, all federal claims have been dismissed and the original basis for federal
jurisdiction cited by the removing parties no longer exists. Title 28, section 1367(c)(3) of
the United States Code, however, permits the Court to decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over state law claims if there are no remaining claims over which the Court has
original jurisdiction.

~,Lapides

v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia,

535 U.S. 613, 618 (2002); Smith v. City of Enid, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10 th Cir. 1998).
The Court therefore directed the parties to address whether this Court should
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Morris' remaining state law claims against the City
and OHP or should decline to do so and either dismiss the remaining state law claims
without prejudice or remand the action to state court.
Morris, the City and OHP have responded. Morris has requested remand; the
defendants have urged the Court to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of judicial economy
as well as convenience and fairness to the parties. OHP has further contended "that there
2

may well be 'diversity of citizenship,'" Doc. 64 at 4, between the parties under section 1332.
As stated, section 1332 jurisdiction is properly invoked when a plaintiff presents a
claim between parties of diverse citizenship and that claim exceeds the required
jurisdictional amount, exclusive of interest and costs. There is no dispute that the amount
in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
Accordingly, the question is whether the citizenship of the parties is diverse.
Morris, individually, appears to be a citizen and resident of the State of California.
See Doc. 9 at 4.

However, for purposes of section 1332, Morris, as "the legal

representative of the estate of [G Morris, may arguably] ... be deemed to be a citizen ..
. ofthe same [s]tate as ... [G Morris: Oklahoma]." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2).
The individual defendants, Keith L. Humphrey, Larry Shelton, Aaron Lancaster,
Jonathon Hicks and Jansen Idlett, are also arguably citizens and residents of the State of
Oklahoma, in light of their employment by the City or OHP.
"[A] political subdivision of a [s]tate[, such as the City,] ... is a citizen of the [s]tate
for diversity purposes." Moor v. Alameda County, 411 U.S. 693, 717-18 (1973)(footnote
and citations omitted). 1 On the other hand, states and those agencies or instrumentalities
that are considered "arm[s] or alter ego[s] ofthe [s]tate," id. at 717, such as OHP, have no
state "citizenship" for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.

~,id.

at 717.

Since OHP is not a "citizen," this action does not involve a dispute "between ...
citizens of different [s]tates," 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), as statutorily required. That is to say,
even assuming the citizenship of Morris is diverse from the citizenship of the individual

1 Defendant Norman Police Department is not a suable entity. See Doc. 33. The Court
therefore has not considered this defendant in making its determination.

3

defendants and the City, OHP's presence in this matter precludes diversity jurisdiction.
See State Highway Commission v. Utah Construction Co., 278 U.S. 194,200 (1929)(suit
between state and citizen of another state is not between citizens of different states);
Doughertyv. University of Oklahoma Board of Regents, 415 Fed. Appx. 23 (10th Cir. 2011).
Having so determined, the Court m'ust decide whether to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction on Morris' claims under section 1367(a) against the City and OHP. "When all
federal claims have been dismissed, the [C]ourt may, and usually should, decline to
exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims." Smith, 149 F.3d at 1156 (citations
omitted)(emphasis added).2 "Notions of comity and federalism demand that a state court
try its own lawsuits, absent compelling reasons to the contrary." Thatcher Enterprises v.
Cache County Corp., 902 F.2d 1472, 1478 (10th Cir. 1990).
Based upon the record and in light of the evolving state law that governs the
remaining issues in this matter, see Bosh v. Cherokee Building Authority, 305 P.3d 994
(Okla. 2013);328 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), the Court in its discretion, which is informed by "the

2As the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has observed, once the
federal claim has dropped out of the picture, ... [the] state law claim ... is no
longer supplemental to any federal question claim. Under those circumstances the
most common response to a pretrial disposition of federal claims has been to
dismiss the state law claim or claims without prejudice-that is the seminal teaching
of United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966), reconfirmed in
Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) and repeated in a
host of cases such as Sawyer v. County of Creek, 908 F.2d 663, 668 (10th Cir.
1990).
Ball v. Renner, 54 F.3d 664, 669 (10th Cir. 1995); ~, id. (recognizing that this concept has been
codified in section 1367(c)(3)).
3See Perry v. City of Norman, 2014 WL 7177263 (Okla. 2014)(not yet released for
publication).

4

nature and extent of pretrial proceedings, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness[,]"
'd
L·, 4
(1) REMANDS 5 this matter to the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma; and
(2) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk
of the state district court to which this matter is remanded.
ENTERED this

~~ day of February, 2015.

4As the District Court of Cleveland County. Oklahoma, and this Court are located in the
same judicial district as the parties to this action and their counsel, considerations of convenience
do not weigh in favor of jurisdiction in either forum. And while this Court has spent substantial time
in resolving the federal law questions and, to some extent, certain state law issues, discovery is
not yet completed. As to the element of fairness, neither OHP nor the City can claim that remand
is unduly prejudicial; the state court is fully capable of resolving the remaining claims. The issues
presented by Morris' claim against OHP are briefed and the parties' papers may be submitted for
consideration to the state court.
5~, Lapides, 535 U.S. at 618 (it is clear that absent viable federal claim, court in its
discretion might well remand state-law tort claims to state court under 1367(c)(3)).

5