Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01822/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01822-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND D. JACKSON, SR.,

Plaintiff, 2:05-cv-1822-GEB-JFM-P

vs.

J. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 21, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:05-cv-01822-GEB -JFM Document 85 Filed 09/13/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 21, 2007, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s September 14, 2006 motion for preliminary injunction is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s March 6, 2007 motion for summary judgment is denied; and

4. Defendants’ March 13, 2007 motion for summary judgment is granted.

5. Since summary judgment is granted on all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the

discretionary decision will be made whether supplemental jurisdiction should continue being

exercised over their lawsuit. This decision is made under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) and (3), and

"is informed by the [United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966)] values of economy,

convenience, fairness, and comity." Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir.

1997) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted). "In the usual case in which all federal-law claims are

eliminated . . . , the balance of factors to be considered . . . will point toward declining to exercise

jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S.

343, 350 n.7 (1988); see also Wade v. Regional Credit Assoc., 87 F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th Cir.

1996). The Gibbs values of comity and fairness do not weigh in favor of the federal court

deciding Plaintiff’s state law claims, because as stated in Gibbs: "Needless decisions of state law

should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by

procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law." 383 U.S. at 726. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims are dismissed under § 1367(c)(3)

as of the date on which this Order is filed.

Dated: September 13, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01822-GEB -JFM Document 85 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 2