Opinion ID: 764845
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Pendent Malicious Prosecution Claim against

Text: Officer Nicholl 67 Plaintiff appeals the district court's dismissal of his pendent malicious prosecution claim against Officer Nicholl for lack of presence of a viable federal claim. A district court's dismissal of pendent state claims is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Hankins v. The Gap, Inc., 84 F.3d 797, 802 (6th Cir.1996); Landefeld v. Marion General Hospital, Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir.1993). See also Ametex Fabrics, Inc. v. Just In Materials, Inc., 140 F.3d 101, 105 (2d Cir.1998) ([T]he exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is left to the discretion of the district court, and this court's review is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion.) (internal citations omitted). 68 The supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, confers upon district courts supplemental jurisdiction over all claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The statute also permits district courts, in their discretion, to dismiss pendent state law claims if all federal claims have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 69 Plaintiff has failed to show how any substantial savings in judicial resources would be gained that outweigh the interest in avoiding the unnecessary resolution of state law issues, nor any undue amount of wasted or duplicative effort that will result from having to re-file ... in state court. Hankins, 84 F.3d at 803. Moreover, plaintiff's request for reinstatement of his malicious prosecution claim is conditioned upon a decision by this court to reverse and remand his constitutional claims to the district court. Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant at 48. As we do not remand any of plaintiff's constitutional claims, we see no utility in sending back to the district court a single issue that turns upon state law and which would be better resolved by the courts of the State of Ohio. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim. Because neither the district court nor this court has addressed the malicious prosecution claim on its merits, plaintiff may choose to re-file the claim in state court. 10