Williams v. Montgomery County Maryland et al, No. 8:2015cv00025 - Document 39 (D. Md. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/22/2015. (kns, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Montgomery County Maryland et al Doc. 39 - __ ,FlLED -OO£RED __ -,,' OOGED -_....JIICEJVB) ~ IN TilE UNITED STATES ()JSTRICT COURT FOR THE ()JSTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND So/ltl,em Divisioll JUL 222015 C\.E'" * .T~,..tk;t.T DIITIlICTOOURT u.s. O\Illl«lTOF~ Iy CHANEL WILLIAMS. ~ * Plaintiff. v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, ef al. Case No.: G.JH-15-25 * * * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION This prisoner civil rights case was removed County by Defendants Montgomery County. Maryland NO.1. Pcnding before the Court is Defcndants' Second Amcnded Dismissal ofsomc Complaint. ofhcr Dismissal Egon Lawrcncc. See ECF Motion fl)r Partial Dismissal claims. ECF No. 34. and Plaintiffs Williams' of Plaintiffs Noticc of Voluntary Motion to Rcmand. ECl' No. 36. A See Loc. R. 105.6 (Md.). for the rcasons that t()lIow. PlaintitTs Noticc of Voluntary Plaintiffs Motion to Rcmand is GRANTED. I. and Sergeant ECl' No. 33. PlaintilTChanci hearing on these motions is unnecessary. DENIED from the Circuit Court for Montgomery is construcd as a motion to amend and is GRANTED. and Dcfendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal is as moot. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is an inmate at the Montgomery and Rchabilitation Lawrcnce. facility. See ECf No. :22 at 11 4. Alleging sexually assaultcd tilcd a complaint County Maryland Departmcnt that a corrcctional hcr while shc was in her prison cell. see id at in the Circuit Court flJr Montgomery of Corrcctions officcr. Sgl. Egon 'I~ 8-12. Plaintiff County against Montgomcry County .. c,,'ee Dockets.Justia.com ECF NO.2. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint adding Sgt. Egon Lawrence as an additional defendant on September 29. 2014. See ECF NO.6. In her amcndcd complaint. Plaintiff allegcd that both dcfendants violated the Maryland Dcclaration of Rights (Articles 24. 25. and 26). and committed battery. intentional infliction of cmotional distress. and assault. See it/. Plaintiffs amended complaint also charged Montgomery County with gross ncgligcnce. See id On October 30. 2014. Defcndant Montgomery County !lIed a motion to dismiss Plaintilrs amended complaint. See ECF No. 10. On November 24. 2014. PlaintifT voluntarily dismissed her claims for violation of Articles 24 and 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights against both defendants and her claims against Montgomery County for battery. intentional infliction of emotional distress. assault. and gross negligence. See ECF Nos. 20. On December 9.2014. PlaintitTadditionally moved to dismiss her count against Sgt. Lawrence for intcntional infliction of emotional distress. See ECI' No. 21. On thc same day. December 9.2014. Plaintiff tiled a second amended complaint largely reflecting Plaintiffs dismissal of the above claims and adding two additional claims against both Defendants: violation of Article 46 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and violation of 42 U.S.c. S 1983. See ECF No. 22-1. After receipt of the second amended complaint. the court denied the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint as moot. See ECF No. 25. At that time. PlaintifT had five pending counts. 80th Defendants were alleged to have violated Articles 25 and 46 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and 42 U.S.c. S 1983. and Delcndant Sgt. Lawrence alone was alleged to have committed battery and assault. See id. Defendants filed a notice of removal in this Court on.lanuary 6.2015 and !lIed a motion to partially dismiss Plaintitrs second amended complaint on January 12.2015. See ECF Nos. 1 & 33. On.lanuary 29. 2015. PlaintifTfiled a response to Defendants' motion to dismiss and a 2 notice of voluntary dismissal. requesting that this Court accept her dismissal of her claims li)r violation of Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983. See ECF No. 34-35. The following day. on January 30. 2015. PlaintifT tiled a motion to remand. contending that this Court no longer has jurisdiction over her case. See ECF No. 36. Defendants oppose remand and request that the Court grant their motion to dismiss Plaintitrs claims for violation of Articles 25 and 46 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and for violation of 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983. See ECF No. 37 at 3. II. DISCUSSION A. Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismiss:,1 The Court will first address Plaintiffs notice of voluntary dismissal. See ECF No. 34. Because Plaintiff seeks to dismiss two claims. rather than her entire suit. Plaintiff cannot proceed under red. R. Civ. P. Rule 41 (a). "The proper mechanism for a plaintilTto withdraw some. but not aiL claims is to file a motion to amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 15:' Elat \'. ,vgollhene. 993 r.supp. 2d 497.519 (D. Md. 2014) (citing Skinner \'. First Am. Bank 4 Va.. 64 F.3d 659 (tablc). 1995 WI. 507264. at *2 (4th CiL1995) ("Because Rule 41 provides lor thc dismissal of actions. rather than claims, Rule 15 is technically the proper vehicle to accomplish a partial dismissal."» (cmphasis in original); )"JllI1g\'. United Parcel Sen' .. DKC-08-2586. 2011 WL 665321 at *7 (D. Md. Feb. 14.20 II) (stating that "a plaintiff wishing to dismiss one count of a multi-count suit should ordinarily look to Rule 15. which govcrns amendmcnts to pleadings" and "Rule 41 (a). which addresses voluntary dismissals. applies only when a party seeks to dismiss an entire action, not merely one claim or COlll1t").r e\,'d on other groIl/1I/1'.135 St. Ct. 1338 (20 15}). Thus. the Court construes Plaintiffs notice of voluntary dismissal as a motion to amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 3 Under Rule 15(a). "[a] party may amend [her] pleading once as a matter of course ... 21 days after serving it. or ... 21 days alier service ofa motion under Rule 12(b) .. :' See Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 15(a)(1) (emphasis added). Otherwise. a party may amend the party's pleading only with ..the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave:' See Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff has already amended her complaint twice. See ECF Nos. 6 & 22. Accordingly. I'laintilfmay further amend her complaint only with the opposing party's consent or leave of Court. Defendants oppose the elimination of some ofPlaintifrs I claims unless it is done with prejudice. See ECF No. 37 at 4. Thus. Plaintiff may only amend her complaint if the Court grants her leave to do so. "The court should freely give leave [to amend a complaintJ when justice so requires:' Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 15(a)(2). When deciding whether to grant leave to amend a complaint. the Court considers whether there will be undue prejudice to the opposing party. whether there will be undue delay. whether the amendment is done with bad faith or dilatory motive. and whether the amendment would be futile. See FOil/an I'. DiIl'is. 371 U.S. 178. 182 (1962). "[AJbsence of prejudice. though not alone determinative. will normally warrant granting leave to amend:' Dads I'. Piper Aircrajt Corp .. 615 F.2d 606. 613 (4th Cir. 1980). Defendants are coneerned that PlaintilTis attempting to eliminate some of her claims in bad faith. See ECF No. 37 at 4. PlaintifThas prcviously amended her complaint twice at the state level. See id. Defendants have incurred expenses. including the $400 filing fee. in removing this I A removed case is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. see Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 81(c)( 1). and a district court ..takes the case as it finds it on removal and treats everything that occurred in the state court as if it had taken place in federal court:' IJII/ner \', Nells/mller. 324 F.2d 783. 785 (9th Cir. 1963). Thus. Plaintiff must seek leave of court to amend her complaint. 4 case to federal court. See ill. Thus. Defendants understandably fear that. given her repeated history of amending her complaint. if Plaintiff is permitted to climinate the federal claim and have this case remanded. she will re-raise the federal claim once back in state court. See ECF No. 37 at 4. PlaintilTdoes little to quell Defendants' fears. Indeed. she incorrectly asserts that she has the automatic right to eliminate her federal claim and have her case remanded to state court. See ECF No. 38. Even given Plaintiffs history of amending her complaint in this case. the Court is not convinced that her actions were taken in bad faith. While Plaintiff seeks to dismiss her only federal claim. "it is not bad faith for a plaintilTto bring both State and lederal claims in State court and then. upon removal. seek dismissal of the federal claims and remand to State court." Ramolnik I'. Fisher. 568 F.Supp. 2d 598. 603 (D. Md. 2008): see also Dominionlleallhcare Servs .. Inc. v. Vallie Oplions. /nc., 1:08CYI34. 2009 WL 580326 at *4 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 5, 2009) ("lA] plainti 1'1' may allege in state court both state and lederal claims. and then iI'that action is removed. may with leave of court and in a timcly manner dismiss its lederal claims:'): Kimsey". Snap-On Tools COli} .. 752 F.Supp. 693. 695 (W.D.N.C. 1990) (noting that "attempting to avoid federal jurisdiction by amending the complaint ... does not diminish the right of ... plaintiffs to set the tone of their case by alleging what they choose") (internal quotation and citation omitted). Further. there is no evidence that PlaintilTadded the federal claim with the desire that Defendants would incur expenses in the removal and remand process. See Dominion Ileallhcare Sen's .. /nc .. 2009 WL 580326 at *4 (Iinding no bad laith in motion to amend and eliminate federal claims where there was no evidence that plaintiffs desired to lorce delendants to incur the expenses of removal). In light of Rule 15(a)' s liberal construction. the Court will permit the amendment. Thus. Plaintiff has amended her complaint to remove her claims It)r 5 violation of Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983. B. Plaintiffs motion to remand Without the 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983 claim. Plaintiff only alleges state-law claims. This does not end the inquiry on the motion to remand. however. "When a defendant removes a case to federal court based on the presence of a federal claim. an amendment eliminating the original basis IlJr federal jurisdiction generally does not defeat jurisdiction:' Roclmelllmel'l1l1lionlll Corp. \', Uniled Siaies. 549 U,S. 457. 474 n. 6 (2007): see also Harless \'. eXI( HOlels. Inc.. 389 F.3d 444, 448 (4th Cir. 2004) ("', , , subject matter jurisdiction is not divested ti'omthe district court when the federal claims are dismissed from the complaint.") (citation omitted). While not required to remand this case. the Court has discretion to either remand or retain a ease when it "has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction:' See 28 U,S.c. ~ 1367(c)(3): see also Uniled Mine Workers o/Am. \'. Gibbs. 383 U,S. 715, 726 (1966) ("It has consistently been recognized that pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion. not of plaintiffs right:'), I-Jere. Defendants properly removed this case and, even with the elimination of the federal claim, the Court may retain jurisdiction over the state law claims if it chooses. Trial courts enjoy wide latitude in determining whether to retain jurisdiction over state claims when all federal claims have been extinguished. See. e.g. Nohle \'. While. 996 F.2d 797. 799 (5th Cir. 1993). Some of the factors that infbnn this discretionarv detcrmination are convenience and fairness to the parties. the existence of any underlying issues of federal policy. comity. and considerations of judicial economy. Cal'l1egie-Mellol1 Uni\'ersil)' \'. Cohill. 484 U.S. 343.350 n. 7 (1988). The doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction ... ,. is a doctrine ofllexibility. designed to allow courts to deal with cases involving pendent claims in the manner that most sensibly accommodates a range of concerns and values:' Id. at 350, Typically. the "halance of 6 factors to be considered ... will point toward declining to cxercise jurisdiction ovcr thc remaining state-law claims'" It!. at 350 n. 7. Here, the Court has not expcndcd substantial rcsourccs in this casc, other than deciding this motion, and has not delved into thc merits of the casco Thus. thc intercst of judicial economy favors remand. In addition, litigating this action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County will not inconvenience the parties as all parties are located in Montgomery County. See ECF No, 2 at 2. Also, thc state court is better suited to hear state law claims. "Needless decisions of state law [by federal courts] should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promotc justicc bctwccn the parties, by procuring for them a surer-Iootcd reading of applicable law'" Gihhs. 383 U.S, at 726. Thc Court's analysis takes into account that PlaintilThas amcnded her complaint several times. Cohill. 484 U,S. at 357 (fInding that courts may "consider whether the plaintilT has cngaged in any manipulative tactics when it decides whether to remand a casc" and "should take this behavior into account"). However. as the Court has not IIHlI1d bad lilith on the part of the Plaintiff in her amendments. the Court likewise fails to find that she is engaging in manipulative . , taclIcs.- In sum. the factors to consider when dcciding whethcr to remand state-law claims favor remand in this casco Farlow \'. WachOl'ia Bank o(North Carolina. NA .. 259 F.3d 309. 316 (4th Cir. 200 I) ("[l]n a case in which the federal claims had been deleted Irom the complaint by the plaintifC before trial. lollowing a removal Irom a state court. thc district court had the discretion to remand the pendent state-law claims to the state court.") (citation omitted). The Court dcclines As this case will be rcmanded. "Plaintiffs [removal of the federal claim] is tantamount to a voluntarily motion to dismiss the federal claim with prejudice. such that PlaintilTwill not reassert the ~ 1983 in state court See DOli/inion Healtheare Sen's .. Inc., 2009 WI. 580326 at *4 n. 3. As such. further amendments adding federal claims would likely be considered to bc done in bad laith. See ill. 2 7 to exercise supplemental III. jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-law claims. CONCLUSION For the reasons explained dismissal. above. the Court construes ECF No. 34. as a motion to amend her complaint claims for violations are eliminated the Maryland of Article 25 of the Maryland from PlaintiIrs Declaration suit. PlaintitTs remaining Sgt. Lawrence. notice of voluntary and GRANTS Declaration the motion. Plaintiffs of Rights and 42 U.S.c. * 1983 claims are for violation of Article 46 of of Rights against both Defendants and assault against Defendant Plaintiffs and PlaintilTs Given the elimination claims fill' battery of the only federal claim. the Court declines to retain jurisdiction in this case. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand. ECF No. 36. is GRANTED. Because the complaint has been amended and the Court is remanding Defendants' motion to dismiss. the case. ECF No. 33. is denied as moot. A separate Order follows. Dated: July ~ ~ ..~/4~--- .2015 GEORGE .I. HAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT 8 JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
