Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00280/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00280-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LORI LANE, etc. )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-280-WHA 

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL ) (WO)

SERVICES, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 

 ORDER

In the original Complaint and the First Amended Complaint filed in this case, subjectmatter jurisdiction of this federal court was based on federal-question jurisdiction over the 

§ 1983 federal claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

On August 21, 2013, the court granted a motion to dismiss the federal claim and all statelaw claims against certain Defendants (Doc. # 32), leaving the case pending against these

Defendants on state-law claims only.

On November 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended 

Complaint. The proposed Second Amended Complaint contained only state-law claims and 

based jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship, but with no specific allegations as to the citizenship 

of the parties. (Doc. # 37).

Case 2:13-cv-00280-WHA-SRW Document 40 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 4
2

In response to the Plaintiff’s Motion, the court entered an Order (Doc. # 38) directing the 

Plaintiff to submit either a revised proposed Second Amended Complaint setting forth sufficient 

factual allegations to establish federal diversity subject-matter jurisdiction or a statement that 

federal diversity jurisdiction does not exist.

The Plaintiff has now filed a Response (Doc. # 39) stating that the parties agree that 

diversity jurisdiction does not exist and further stating that the parties are in agreement that the 

case should be remanded to Limestone County Circuit Court. The problem with that, however, is 

that the case is not in this court by removal from the Circuit Court of Limestone County, or from 

any other state court, but the case was originally filed in this federal court. For that reason, this 

court has no legal authority to remand this case to a state court as requested.

This leaves the case before the court at this time on the First Amended Complaint, with 

only state-law claims against certain Defendants, and with supplemental jurisdiction over those 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), after the court’s earlier dismissal of the only federal 

claims over which it had original jurisdiction. This brings into play the provision of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) provides that “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if [...] the district court has 

dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” See Palmer v. Hosp. Auth. of 

Randolph Cnty., 22 F.3d 1559, 1568–69 (11th Cir. 1994) (noting the section and discussing 

analysis to be used in exercising the court’s discretion).

An important factor for the court to consider in determining whether to keep or dismiss 

this case is whether the state-law claims would be barred by the state statute of limitations. It 

appears that they would be, except for the important saving provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)—

Case 2:13-cv-00280-WHA-SRW Document 40 Filed 11/15/13 Page 2 of 4
3

“[t]he period of limitations for any claim in the same action asserted under subsection (a) [...] 

shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless 

State law provides for a longer period.” Because of that, the Plaintiff would be able to re-file 

these state-law claims in an appropriate state court within 30 days, if the court declines to 

exercise § 1367(a) supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

The court then applies the appropriate analysis of other factors to be considered, i.e. “the 

values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. 

Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). The litigation is in its relatively early stages, and neither the 

values of economy nor convenience would be disserved by dismissing the case for re-filing in 

state court. Furthermore, fairness appears to support dismissing the action without prejudice, 

with neither party asserting that this court would have had original jurisdiction as it now stands. 

Finally, comity suggests that the state courts of Alabama should be allowed to interpret and 

apply Alabama legal issues, as these are the only remaining issues.

For these reasons, the court finds that it has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 

state-law claims but declines to exercise that jurisdiction, and it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is DENIED.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice, subject to the right of the Plaintiff to refile the remaining state-law claims in state court within 30 days from the date of this 

ORDER, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

3. Costs are taxed as paid.

DONE this 15th day of November, 2013.

Case 2:13-cv-00280-WHA-SRW Document 40 Filed 11/15/13 Page 3 of 4
4

/s/ W. Harold Albritton 

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-00280-WHA-SRW Document 40 Filed 11/15/13 Page 4 of 4