Opinion ID: 503061
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The D.C.APA Claim

Text: 33 The Robinsons renew on appeal their claim that the Department of Corrections' failure to comply with the public notice and comment requirements of the District of Columbia Administrative Procedures [sic] Act, D.C.Code Sec. 1-1501 et seq. ..., as well as the publication requirement of D.C.Code Sec. 1-1538(b), render[s] the February 1984 visitation regulations invalid. Opening Brief of Appellants/Cross-Appellees at 28. The district court declined to rule on this claim, observing that a challenge of this type is more properly decided in the first instance by the local courts of the District of Columbia. 631 F.Supp. at 56 n. 7. We agree. Because no federal claim remains in the case, the district court, on remand, should dismiss without prejudice the D.C.Code claim. See, e.g., United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966) (if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well).