BELL v. CO CACIA, No. 2:2022cv00701 - Document 27 (W.D. Pa. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that for the reasons set forth therein, the 22 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM re 20 Amended Complaint filed by CACIA will be granted and this case remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, PA forthwith. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 10/24/2022. (bsc)

Download PDF

BELL v. CO CACIA Doc. 27 Case 2:22-cv-00701-CRE Document 27 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PITTSBURGH T. MONTANA BELL, Plaintiff, v. C/O CACIA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 2: 22-cv-0701 United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 Presently before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State A Claim filed by Defendant, C/O Cacia (ECF No. 22), and the Response filed by Plaintiff, T. Montana Bell. (ECF Nos. 25 and 26). For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be granted. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and this matter will be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Pennsylvania, forthwith. Background Plaintiff, T. Montana Bell (“Plaintiff” or “Bell”), is a state prisoner committed to the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and currently confined at the State Correctional Institution at Fayette, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Fayette”). Bell initiated this action by filing pro se a Writ and Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Pennsylvania. In the original Complaint, Bell raised four claims, all pertaining to the In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties have voluntarily consented to jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge, including entry of final judgment See ECF Nos. 8 and 12. 1 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-00701-CRE Document 27 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 3 interference with Bell’s personal property: two state law claims, negligence and assumpsit, and two claims invoking his constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (Complaint, ¶¶ 16 – 19, ECF No. 1-2). Defendant removed the matter to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. On May 20, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 4). In response, Bell filed an Amended Complaint, raising only two state law claims: negligence and assumpsit. (ECF No. 20). Nowhere in the Amended Complaint does Bell assert a violation of his rights under the U.S. Constitution. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint seeking to have all federal claims dismissed with prejudice and the case remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County. (ECF No. 22). While removal was proper at the time Defendant filed his Notice of Removal based on the presence of federal law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Bell has since voluntarily withdrawn all federal claims from this action. Bell clearly now is seeking relief against Defendant pursuant only to Pennsylvania law. Where, as is the case here, all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary. Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 650 (3d Cir. 2009). The decision should be based on “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). Ordinarily, when all federal law claims have been dismissed, the balance of these factors weighs in favor of resolving the remaining state law claims in the state court. Id. 2 Case 2:22-cv-00701-CRE Document 27 Filed 10/24/22 Page 3 of 3 The balance of factors in this case weighs heavily in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. In particular, the Court notes that Bell commenced this case in state court, the claims that provided the basis for removal jurisdiction have been voluntarily withdrawn, and the litigation remains in its earliest stages. Conclusion Defendant Cacia’s motion to dismiss will be granted. To the extent that the Amended Complaint raises any federal claims, such claims are dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The Clerk of Court will be directed to remand this case forthwith to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Pennsylvania. An appropriate Order follows. s/ Cynthia Reed Eddy Cynthia Reed Eddy United States Magistrate Judge cc: T. MONTANA BELL LD5447 SCI FAYETTE 50 Overlook Drive LaBelle, PA 15450 (via U.S. First Class Mail) Scott A. Bradley Office of the Attorney General (via ECF electronic notification) 3

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.