Opinion ID: 6226274
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: dismissal of state-law claims

Text: When the district court disposed of Hardeman’s § 1983 claims, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. “We review the district court’s decision declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for an abuse of discretion.” Strain, 977 F.3d at 989. Once all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Barnett v. Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C., 956 F.3d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir. 2020) (“The Supreme Court has encouraged the practice of dismissing state claims or 4 We need not address whether the dismissal of defendants McCurdy and Cincotta could also be based on the absence of personal participation. We note, however, that the dismissal of those defendants cannot support the designation of a strike. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (“In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated . . . brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”). Here, only the claims against McCurdy and Cincotta were dismissed for failure to state claims—the remaining claims were dismissed on other grounds or resolved on the merits. Therefore, the designation of a strike was improper. See Thomas v. Parker, 672 F.3d 1182, 1183 (10th Cir. 2012) (“Because the statute refers to dismissals of ‘actions,’ as opposed to ‘claims,’ it is well established that a partial dismissal based on one of the grounds enumerated in § 1915(g) is generally not a proper basis for assessing a strike.”). 9 Appellate Case: 21-7018 Document: 010110645802 Date Filed: 02/16/2022 Page: 10 remanding them to state court when the federal claims to which they are supplemental have dropped out before trial.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Hardeman’s state-law claims.