TURNER v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al, No. 1:2017cv01007 - Document 8 (S.D. Ind. 2017)

Court Description: Entry Granting Motion to Dismiss Federal Claims and Remanding Case to State Court - Accordingly, the Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, and this action is remanded to Marion Superior Court.An Order of Remand and Dismissal consistent with this Entry shall issue. (See Entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/1/2017. (JLS)
Download PDF
TURNER v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION KEVIN S. TURNER, Plaintiff, vs. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, BRUCE LEMMON, WENDY KNIGHT, WILLIAM HYATTE, C. FOX, GRADY Ms., J. SIMPSON, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:17-cv-01007-TWP-DML Entry Granting Motion to Dismiss Federal Claims and Remanding Case to State Court This action was removed by the defendants from Marion Superior Court to this Court. Federal jurisdiction was predicated on the plaintiff’s federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985. Presently before the Court is the plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his federal claims (Counts 2 and 3 of his Complaint) and proceed only with his state-law negligence claims. The deadline for the defendants to respond to this motion has passed, and they have not responded. The plaintiff’s unopposed motion to dismiss his federal claims, [dkt. 6], is therefore granted, and his federal claims are dismissed without prejudice. Now that the plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court must decide whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state-law negligence claims. The Court ultimately has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF BIO, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (“The district courts may Dockets.Justia.com decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .”). When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, “‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). “When all federal claims in a suit in federal court are dismissed before trial, the presumption is that the court will relinquish federal jurisdiction over any supplemental state-law claims.” Al’s Serv. Ctr. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 720, 727 (7th Cir. 2010). The relevant factors clearly weigh in favor of the Court relinquishing jurisdiction over this action. Most importantly, no action has been taken by this Court regarding the plaintiff’s claims. Almost immediately after the defendants removed this action to federal court, the plaintiff moved to dismiss his federal claims. Accordingly, the Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, and this action is remanded to Marion Superior Court. An Order of Remand and Dismissal consistent with this Entry shall issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 5/1/2017 Electronic distribution to counsel of record via CM/ECF and by U.S. mail to: KEVIN S. TURNER 922829 INDIANA STATE PRISON New Castle "Correctional Facility (NCN) INDIANA STATE PRISON Inmate Mail/Parcels One Park Row MICHIGAN CITY, IN 46360