Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03496/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03496-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE JEROME ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

OFFICER R. CUSACK,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-3496 MEJ

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND REMAND

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AS MOOT

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant Rolf Cusack's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss and Remand,

filed January 29, 2009 (Doc. #109), and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed January

31, 2008 (Doc. #112). The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing and

VACATES the March 13, 2008 hearing date. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS

Defendant's motion to dismiss and REMANDS this matter to the Superior Court of California, Del

Norte. Defendant's summary judgment motion is, therefore, DENIED as moot. 

II. BACKGROUND

A full description of the underlying facts are contained in the Court's June 20, 2007, Order

Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Third Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Accordingly, the Court shall provide only a brief procedural background as relevant to the instant

motions.

Case 3:03-cv-03496-MEJ Document 126 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On July 28, 2003, Plaintiff Wayne Jerome Robertson ("Plaintiff") filed his initial complaint,

asserting a single cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff later amended his complaint to

add causes of action for negligence and negligence per se. 

On March 1, 2007, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment as to all Plaintiff's

claims. (Doc. #89.) On June 20, 2007, the Court granted summary judgment as to the federal 1983

claim, but denied Defendant's motion as to the negligence and negligence per se claims. (Doc.

#101.)

On January 29, 2008, Defendant filed the present Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #109), and filed a

Motion for Summary Judgment on January 31, 2008 (Doc. #112). On February 21, 2008, Plaintiff

filed oppositions to both motions. (Doc. ##119, 121.) On February 28 and 29, Defendant filed his

replies. (Doc. ##124, 125.) 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Dismiss

First, Defendant argues that now that Plaintiff's federal civil rights claims have been

dismissed, this Court should exercise its discretion and decline to exercise jurisdiction over his

pendent state claims.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over a state claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. In

making this determination, "a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every

stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in order to

decide whether to exercise jurisdiction over a case brought in that court involving pendent state-law

claims." Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) (citing United Mine

Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-27 (1966)). "[I]n the usual case in which all

federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the

pendent jurisdiction doctrine - judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity - will point

toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Id. at 350, n.7. 

Here, only Plaintiff's state law causes of action remain. "Where a district court dismisses a

Case 3:03-cv-03496-MEJ Document 126 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

federal claim, leaving only state claims for resolution, it should decline jurisdiction over the state

claims and dismiss them without prejudice." Wade v. Regional Credit Ass'n, 87 F.3d 1098, 1101

(9th Cir. 1996) (citing Les Shockley Racing v. Nat'l Hot Rod Ass'n, 884 F.2d 504, 509 (9th

Cir.1989)). "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." 

Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff's remaining state law claims

should be dismissed without prejudice and remanded to state court for consideration. 

B. Summary Judgment Motion

As the Court finds it appropriate to remand this matter to state court, a decision on

Defendant's summary judgment motion is unnecessary.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss under 28

U.S.C. § 1367, and REMANDS this matter to the Superior Court of California, Del Norte. 

Accordingly, Defendant's summary judgment motion is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2008 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-03496-MEJ Document 126 Filed 03/05/08 Page 3 of 3