This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
DENIED, in part. ECF No. 10. More specifically, the Court hereby
DISMISSES: (1) all of Plaintiff's claims against the Sheriff in his
official capacity; (2) Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against the Sheriff in his individual capacity; and (3) Plaintiff's
state law claims against the Sheriff for simple negligence. After
dismissing such matters, theonly claim remaining against the Sheriff
is Plaintiff's state law gross negligence claim.
In light of suchruling, and as discussedbelow, Plaintiff is hereby
ORDERED to file a brief demonstrating why the claims remaining in
this case should not also be dismissed.
According to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), discussing supplemental
jurisdiction of the United States district courts:
[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have
original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have
supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are
so related to claims in the action within such original
jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy under Article III of the United States
Constitution.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, subsection (c) of that same statute
states as follow:
The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if--
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State
law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the
claim or claims over which the district court has
original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other
compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.Jump to an indexed page (5 of 5)