Filed: Sep. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 23, 2015
Summary: RULING AND ORDER JOHN W. deGRAVELLES , District Judge . This Court has determined that it lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). "[L]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may be asserted at any time by the court, sua sponte[.]" 5B Charles A. Wright & Arthu
Summary: RULING AND ORDER JOHN W. deGRAVELLES , District Judge . This Court has determined that it lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). "[L]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may be asserted at any time by the court, sua sponte[.]" 5B Charles A. Wright & Arthur..
More
RULING AND ORDER
JOHN W. deGRAVELLES, District Judge.
This Court has determined that it lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice.
"If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). "[L]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may be asserted at any time by the court, sua sponte[.]" 5B Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1350 (3d ed. 2015).
Here, pro se Plaintiff Brian Lewis' original claim against Ms. Gwen Brown was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That claim was subsequently dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. (Doc. 64).
Additionally, at that time, the Court allowed the Amended Complaint to continue against the new named defendants, which consisted of Albertson's LLC and several Albertson employees. This amended complaint contains only one apparent allegation, which is that Albertson's "refuses to relinquish phone record of conversations between Lewis and Ms. Brown." (Doc. 14). Though other defendants are named in the amended complaint, no other allegations are presented. (See Doc. 14). As such, there are no longer any grounds for federal jurisdiction over Mr. Lewis' claims.
This Court recognizes that the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, the district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Rhyne v. Henderson Cnty., 973 F.2d 386, 394 (5th Cir. 1992).
As stated above, that has occurred here with the dismissal of Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against Ms. Brown. Consequently, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Lewis' remaining allegation against Albertsons LLC, which is not a federal claim, and may not even qualify as a claim under state law. The Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against the remaining defendants, whatever those may be.
Finally, a determination of lack of subject jurisdiction renders any pending motions moot. Thus, there is no need to consider Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Frivolous Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 and for Sanctions. (Doc. 70).1
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that this case, Lewis v. Brown, No. 14-435-JWD-SCR, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
