Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05445/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05445-6/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KANDEE GILBERT LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BARON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:00-cv-05445-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 133)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 129)

ORDER REFERRING ACTION TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Kandee Gilbert Lewis (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 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 Rule 72-302.

On June 23, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations the

recommended the moving Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. The Findings

and Recommendations were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that

any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On

August 7, 2006, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305,

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

Case 1:00-cv-05445-AWI-DLB Document 135 Filed 09/01/06 Page 1 of 3
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

analysis.

In the objections, Plaintiff contends that the Findings and Recommendations do not

address the due process claim, equal protection claim, and state law claims. On January 17,

2001, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the due process and equal protection

claims. Thus, the January 17, 2001 order, along with this order, resolves all of Plaintiff federal

claims against the moving Defendants.

However, Plaintiff is correct that her state law claims remain. The court notes that

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is a doctrine of discretion not of Plaintiff's right. 

Its justification lies in considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the

litigants; if these are not present, a federal court should hesitate to exercise jurisdiction over state

claims. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Because the federal claims

against Defendants Baron, Castellanos, Eby, I. Kent, S. Kent, Rawlings, Schei,, Sooter, and

Wilson have been resolved, there remains no independent basis for federal jurisdiction against

these Defendants. The court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims

when the federal claims are dismissed before trial. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Gibbs, 383 U.S.

at 726. However, the court will not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state

law claims at this time because federal claims remain against other Defendants.

As Plaintiff points out in her objections, Defendants Hall and Williams remain in this

action. They did not file a summary judgment, and the federal and state claims remain against

them. Thus, while the court grants summary judgment to the moving Defendants, this action

will proceed against Defendants Hall and Williams on the federal and state claims and against the

moving Defendants on the state law claims.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 23, 2006, are ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed December 22, 2005, is

GRANTED; and

3. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants Baron, Castellanos,

Case 1:00-cv-05445-AWI-DLB Document 135 Filed 09/01/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Eby, I. Kent, S. Kent, Rawlings, Schei,, Sooter, and Wilson on the failure to

protect claim;

4. This action is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on the

state law claims and claims against Defendants Hall and Williams.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

9h0d30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05445-AWI-DLB Document 135 Filed 09/01/06 Page 3 of 3