Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clark v. City of Center Line

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

June 28, 2018

KIMBERLY CLARK, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CENTER LINE, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR, PAUL MYSZENSKI; OFFICER ANDREW PERCHA and DETECTIVE MICHAEL GERALD, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS STATE LAW CLAIM

          ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Kimberly Clark filed a complaint alleging the following counts:

. Count I: a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for excessive force in violation of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments against City of Center Line, Public Safety Director Paul Myszenski, Officer Andrew Percha, and Detective Michael Gerald;
. Count II: a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for Monell [1] Liability against Defendants City of Center Line and Public Safety Director Paul Myszenski, and Defendants Officer Andrew Percha and Detective Michael Gerald, in their official capacities;
. Count III: state law claims of gross negligence and/or wanton and willful misconduct in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1407. (Dkt. #1.)

         Counts I and II allege federal claims over which the court has original federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Count III is a state law claim. Since Plaintiff's federal and state law claims arise out of the same incident and share common operative facts, the court is permitted to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. However, exercising supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim would not promote judicial economy, the convenience of the parties, fairness, or comity. Therefore, the court will dismiss the state law claim without prejudice.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff alleges that on April 25, 2018, she was at her son's residence and Defendants “Officer Andrew Percha and/or Detective Michael Gerald took custody of her, threw her into a wall and handcuffed her.” (Dkt. # 1, Pg.ID 4.). Plaintiff alleges she was not resisting Defendants and that the police report for the incident confirms her account. Plaintiff allegedly sustained numerous injuries. (Dkt. # 1, Pg. ID 6-7.).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over each claim in an action that shares a common nucleus of operative facts with a claim that invokes the court's original jurisdiction. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966). However, the federal court need not exercise its authority to invoke supplemental jurisdiction in every case in which it is possible to do so. Id. at 726. Supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right.” Id. Justification for this doctrine “lies in considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants.” Id. Therefore, “[i]n deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction … a judge must take into account concerns of comity, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and the like.” Senra v. Smithfield, 715 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir. 2013). However, if these considerations are not present, “a federal court should hesitate to exercise jurisdiction over state claims….” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Additionally, supplemental jurisdiction may be denied “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, ” if “it appears that the state issues subsequently predominate, ” or “if the likelihood of jury confusion” would be strong without separation of the claims. Id. at 726-27.

         28 U.S.C. § 1367 authorizes the federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. A court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) if:

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.