Donte Booker v. City of Beachwood , 451 F. App'x 521 ( 2011 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0857n.06
No. 10-3549
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
DONTE BOOKER, )
) Dec 19, 2011
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
)
v. )
)
CITY OF BEACHWOOD, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
Defendant, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
JANE AND JOHN DOE 1-10, ) DISTRICT OF OHIO
)
Defendant, and )
)
PATRICK SULLIVAN AND PAUL BERLINE, )
)
Defendants-Appellants. )
)
BEFORE: DAUGHTREY, COLE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Defendants Patrick Sullivan and Paul Berline appeal the district
court’s order dismissing plaintiff Donte Booker’s state law intentional infliction of emotional distress
(IIED) claim without prejudice rather than with prejudice. The district court granted Sullivan and
Berline’s motion for summary judgment as to each of Booker’s claims against them, except his IIED
claim. The district court, however, declined supplemental jurisdiction over the IIED claim and
dismissed it without prejudice. Sullivan and Berline argue that the district court should have granted
their motion for summary judgment as to the IIED claim instead of dismissing it without prejudice.
Sullivan and Berline also argue, in the alternative, that in light of the district court’s decision to
No. 10-3549
Donte Booker v. City of Beachwood, et al.
decline supplemental jurisdiction over the IIED claim, its discussion of the merits of that claim
constitutes an improper advisory opinion that should be vacated. The district court, however, did
not abuse its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over the IIED claim and dismissing
it without prejudice, notwithstanding its contemporaneous rejection of Sullivan and Berline’s motion
for summary judgment as to that claim. There is, moreover, no need for us to edit the district court’s
opinion.
Booker served seventeen years in prison after being wrongly convicted of rape,
kidnapping, robbery, and gross sexual imposition. After Booker was paroled and released, a state
court judge ordered the forensic evidence in Booker’s case to be retested using modern
procedures. This testing proved that Booker was innocent and revealed the identity of the real
perpetrator.
Booker subsequently sued the state of Ohio and received compensation. Booker then
filed this case in federal court against the city of Beachwood and two of its police officers,
Sullivan and Berline. After the district court ruled on the defendants’ motion for judgment on
the pleadings, Booker’s following claims remained: (1) state law claims for malicious
prosecution and IIED against the city, Sullivan, and Berline; and (2) federal claims for due
process violations, malicious prosecution, and civil conspiracy against Sullivan and Berline.
The defendants then moved for summary judgment. The district court granted judgment
in favor of the defendants on all of Booker’s claims, except his IIED claim against Sullivan and
Berline. The district court reasoned that the IIED claim was timely under the applicable statute
-2-
No. 10-3549
Donte Booker v. City of Beachwood, et al.
of limitations, and denied summary judgment as to that claim. However, at the end of its
opinion, the district court stated that it “declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
state law [IIED] claim against Defendants Sullivan and Berline pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c)(3) and dismisses such claim without prejudice.”
Sullivan and Berline now appeal. They argue that the district court should have granted
their motion for summary judgment as to the IIED claim instead of dismissing it without
prejudice. They also argue, in the alternative, that in light of the district court’s decision to
decline supplemental jurisdiction over the IIED claim, its discussion of the merits of that claim
constitutes an improper advisory opinion that should be vacated.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over
Booker’s IIED claim and dismissing it without prejudice. Therefore, this court need not decide
whether the district court should have granted Sullivan and Berline’s motion for summary
judgment as to that claim. This court also need not vacate the portion of the district court’s
opinion discussing the merits of the IIED claim because that discussion has no legal effect on the
parties in any future proceeding.
Once the district court dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction,
it acted squarely within its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
IIED claim and dismissing it without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). When, as here, “all
federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of considerations usually will point to
-3-
No. 10-3549
Donte Booker v. City of Beachwood, et al.
dismissing the state law claims.” Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244,
1254-55 (6th Cir. 1996).
Moreover, the district court did not err by declining supplemental jurisdiction after
holding the IIED claim to be timely and denying Sullivan and Berline’s motion for summary
judgment as to that claim. The district court had the discretion to decline supplemental
jurisdiction over the IIED claim at any stage of the litigation. See Nails v. Riggs, 195 F. App’x
303, 313 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173
(1997)). The Supreme Court has even contemplated a scenario in which a district court could
decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim during trial. See United Mine Workers of
Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 727 (1966). In short, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
declining supplemental jurisdiction over the IIED claim when it did. Therefore, this court need
not decide whether the district court should have granted Sullivan and Berline’s motion for
summary judgment as to the IIED claim.
This court also need not vacate the portion of the district court’s opinion discussing the
merits of Booker’s IIED claim because that discussion has no legal effect on the parties in any
future proceeding. Sullivan and Berline characterize the district court’s discussion as an advisory
opinion. Whether that characterization is accurate is immaterial. If Booker sues Sullivan and
Berline in state court for IIED, the state court would not be bound by the district court’s
discussion of that claim. Therefore, there is no need for this court to vacate the district court’s
discussion of the merits of Booker’s IIED claim.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
-4-
No. 10-3549
Donte Booker v. City of Beachwood, et al.
-5-