Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00051/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00051-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Borden
Plaintiff
James Yates
Defendant

Document Text:

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

STEVEN BORDEN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00051-OWW-SMS-PC

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR THE COURT TO EXERCISE

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

(Doc. 24.) 

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 Steven Borden (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by Plaintiff in

the Fresno County Superior Court on November 5, 2007 (Case #07CECL10425). On January 10,

2008, defendant Yates (“Defendant”) removed the case to federal court by filing a Notice of

Removal of Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). (Doc. 1.) On February 2, 2009, Plaintiff

filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 22.) On August 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for court to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this action over his state tort claims under 28 U.S.C. §

1367. (Doc. 25.) Plaintiff’s motion is now before the court.

II. ORIGINAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts exercise original jurisdiction over civil actions

arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original jurisdiction, the district court

“shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in the action within such original

jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III [of the

1

Case 1:08-cv-00051-OWW -SMS Document 27 Filed 02/18/10 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

Constitution],” except as provided in subsections (b) and (c). “[O]nce judicial power exists

under § 1367(a), retention of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 1367(c) is

discretionary.” Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). Under 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c), "[T]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a

claim under subsection (a) if -- (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the

claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has

original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original

jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining

jurisdiction." The Supreme Court has cautioned that “if the federal claims are dismissed before

trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers of America v.

Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). 

III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

In the court’s order filed August 20, 2008, the court found that Plaintiff’s original

complaint contains federal constitutional claims, such that it properly satisfies the requirements

for federal subject matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. 19.) In such case, the court

also has supplemental jurisdiction over any of plaintiff’s state claims which form part of the same

case or controversy under Article III at issue in plaintiff’s federal claims. However, the court

retains discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims

at a later stage of these proceedings, should good cause arise under § 1367(c). 

1

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s request for the court to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction is HEREBY RESOLVED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity

1

or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). As yet, Plaintiff’s amended complaint has

not been screened by the court.

2

Case 1:08-cv-00051-OWW -SMS Document 27 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 2