Opinion ID: 169875
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: State Law Claim s

Text: Lynch’s claims based on allegations Defendants violated the Colorado Constitution, various Colorado statues and the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct are not cognizable under § 1983. “Section 1983 does not . . . provide a basis for redressing violations of state law, but only for those violations of federal law done under color of state law. Jones v. City & County of Denver, Colo., 854 F.2d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 1988); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Every person who, under color of [state law,] . . . subjects . . . any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and law s, shall be liable . . . .”). To the extent Lynch seeks to bring claims directly under these provisions or other state law claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. Exum v. United States Olympic Comm., 389 F.3d 1130, 1138 (10th Cir. 2004). Because the court properly granted summary judgment to Defendants on Lynch’s federal claims, the court was w ell within its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); Exum, 389 F.3d at 1138-39. -11- Given that Lynch’s claims are baseless, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lynch’s motion for leave to amend and his post-judgment motions.