Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01895/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01895-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff is a civil detaining who is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights case. On June 5, 2015, this Court adopted a Findings and Recommendation and dismissed 

Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. See Doc. No. 30. The Findings and Recommendation found 

that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. No. 28. 

Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit

On June 1, 2016, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the 

matter. See Doc. No. 35. The Ninth Circuit held that the Court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s 

Fourth Amendment claims. See id. With respect to Plaintiff’s state law claims, the Ninth Circuit 

held that, while the state law claims do not form the basis of a § 1983 claim, they are cognizable 

under the California Constitution. See id. The Ninth Circuit noted that this Court had 

supplemental jurisdiction over the California Constitution claims. See id. The Ninth Circuit then 

reversed the dismissal of the state law claims. See id. However, the Ninth Circuit stated that, on 

remand, this Court “should exercise its discretion as to whether it will exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over [Plaintiff’s] state law claims.” Id.

DAVID N. OSOLINSKI,

Plaintiff

v.

MARISA BIGOT, et al.,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01895 AWI

ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE 

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND 

CLOSING CASE

Case 1:14-cv-01895-AWI-SAB Document 36 Filed 07/05/16 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

27

28

2

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), where a court has disposed of all claims over which it has 

original jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 

remaining state law claims. In fact, the general rule is that courts should decline to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction when § 1367(c)(3) applies. See Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Wollersheim, 

971 F.2d 364, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, after consideration, the Court will decline to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Religious 

Tech., 971 F.2d at 367-68.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims;

2. Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in state court; and

3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01895-AWI-SAB Document 36 Filed 07/05/16 Page 2 of 2