Opinion ID: 687977
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction

Text: 28 Slezak charges that the district court improperly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim in subsection 13, 13, page 18, of the proposed amended complaint. That subsection argued that Defendants violated the South Carolina state constitution by using the Omnibus Criminal Justice Improvement Act, 1986 S.C. Acts 2955 (OCJA), and that the OCJA is illegally bobtailed. This claim does not assert any violations of federal law. 29 When a case contains federal claims and state claims over which the court has supplemental jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [the state claims] if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original juris diction. 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1367(c)(3) (West 1993). Because the district court properly denied relief on the federal claims, it also properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.