Donohue v. San Antonio Police Department et al

Filing 9

ORDER GRANTING 8 Motion to Remand back to State Court; The Clerk is Directed to REMANED this case to the 57th Judicial District State Court and to CLOSE the case. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (wg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
JOHN M. DONOHUE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAN ANTONIO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, ET AL.
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. SA-14-CV-767-XR

ORDER
On this day, the Court considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. Docket no. 8. After
careful consideration, the motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff filed a pro se petition in the 57th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas
on August 7, 2014. In that petition Plaintiff alleged that he was wrongfully imprisoned and
assaulted by police officers in August 2013. The Defendant promptly removed the case to
federal court. The Court previously found it had federal question jurisdiction over this case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1367. See docket no. 5. After removal, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
October 10, 2014 (docket no. 7) that eliminated any references to federal law, and then filed this
motion to remand the same day. Defendants have not responded to the motion to remand.
A district court has discretion to remand claims over which they have supplemental
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). At the early stages of litigation, a court should decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remand the case to state court if the federal claims have
been dropped and only state-law claims remain. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343,
350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619 (1988) (“[W]hen the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit
1

in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise
of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice.”); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's,
London & Other Insurers Subscribing to Reinsurance Agreements F96/2922/00 & No.
F97/2992/00 v. Warrantech Corp., 461 F.3d 568, 579 (5th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff’s amended
complaint dropped his federal claims. The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, pursuant to Carnegie-Mellon, as the case is still
in the early stages of litigation.
For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for remand (docket no. 8).
The Clerk is directed to REMAND this case to state court and to close the case.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 30th day of October, 2014.

XAVIER RODRIGUEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2