Opinion ID: 170115
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Parole in October 2004.

Text: The two newspaper articles were published in April 2004. In October 2004, Mr. Kennedy was denied parole by the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board (Parole Board), and previously he has been denied parole at least ten times during his term of incarceration. R., Doc. 165, Ex. 2 at 55. Mr. Kennedy testified at his deposition in February 2007 that he does not know why the Parole Board denied parole on any of those occasions. Id. at 56. He also testified that he does not know whether the Parole Board knew about or considered the two newspaper articles when it denied parole in October 2004. Id. at 62-63, 66-67. In addition, -3- the record indicates that, while the district court granted the parties several months to conduct discovery and Mr. Kennedy submitted written discovery requests to defendants and attempted to take their depositions, he did not seek any discovery from the Parole Board. C. Mr. Kennedy’s § 1983 Claims and the District Court’s Rulings. In his § 1983 complaint, Mr. Kennedy alleged as follows: On or about April 1st, 2004 IN CONSPIRACY with each other, without proper investigation, or verification of facts, the defendants made libelous, malicious, negligent, vindictive ‘sensationalist’ [tabloid] type false statements AND CAUSED THEM TO BE PUBLISHED, slandering and defaming the plaintiff, . . . and did so in a conspiracy to DEPRIVE HIM of a meaningful parole consideration. R., Doc. 1 at 2. 1; see also Aplt. Opening Br. at 16 (alleging that defendants engaged “IN A LONG RUNNING conspiracy to prevent plaintiff from receiving a state parole”). In short, Mr. Kennedy alleged that defendants Sexton (the Muskogee County Court Clerk), Sheriff Pearson, and Sheriff Deputy Smith conspired to defame him by having false information published in the media, which information demeaned his reputation and caused the Parole Board to deny parole in October 2004. 2 1 In addition to Sexton, Pearson, and Smith, Mr. Kennedy also named three Oklahoma newspapers and three Oklahoma television stations as defendants in his complaint. The district court separately dismissed the claims asserted against the latter defendants, and those claims are not at issue in this appeal. 2 Although Mr. Kennedy also alleged that the publication of the anonymous (continued...) -4- The district court construed Mr. Kennedy’s allegations as stating both federal and state law claims, and, after extensive briefing by both sides, the court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants based on the following reasoning: As to the defendant Sexton, plaintiff alleges her sole role in the underlying events was limited to receiving the anonymous letter and forwarding it to the Sheriff’s office. As to defendants Pearson and Smith, plaintiff clearly disagrees with the investigative methods used to investigate the letter, but he offers no evidence of any “concerted action” between the defendants to deprive[] him of his constitutional rights. The role of the Sheriff’s office was to investigate the allegations made in the letter. This does not appear to be an unconstitutional goal. In fact, it was their job. Plaintiff must establish there was an agreement among defendants to deprive him of a constitutional right. Plaintiff does not even offer conclusory allegations of a conspiracy. He has failed to establish [there] was an agreement among defendants to deprive him of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, his claim must fail. The civil rights conspiracy claim was the only federal claim in the lawsuit. The remaining claims are state law in nature. The Tenth Circuit has held that when federal claims are resolved prior to trial, the district court should usually decline to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims and allow plaintiff to pursue them in state court. Ball v. Renner, 54 F.3d 664, 669 (10th Cir. 1995) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that when all federal claims are dismissed, district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state claims). Accordingly, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction 2 (...continued) letter put him at risk of injury from other inmates, he testified at his deposition that he had not been threatened by any other inmates as a result of the letter’s publication. R., Doc. 165, Ex. 2 at 65-67, 70-72. Consequently, we do not need to consider his endangerment allegation. -5- over the remaining state law claims. Therefore, the court hereby dismisses without prejudice this case in its entirety. 3 R., Doc. 175 at 4-5.