(PC) Lipsey v. Medina ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR., 1:17-cv-01705-LJO-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RULING 13 v. (Doc. 29) 14 MEDINA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This civil rights action was closed on January 8, 2020, after determination that Plaintiff 18 repeatedly failed to state a claim. (Doc. 27.) Plaintiff has since filed a motion requesting a ruling as 19 to the status of his state law claims. 20 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 21 Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). Federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims 22 only when the plaintiff alleges a federal claim over which the court has original jurisdiction and the 23 state law claims “are so related to the claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they 24 form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 25 U.S.C. § 1367(a). When the federal claims are dismissed before trial, it is wholly within the district 26 court’s discretion to dismiss the state claims. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 27 ( 1966); see also Schneider v. TRW, Inc., 938 F .2d 986, 993-94 (9th Cir. 1991); 28 U.S.C. § 28 1367(c)(3). 1 Because Plaintiff’s allegations were found to be insufficient to proceed on any federal claim, 2 there was no basis for the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law 3 claims and no ruling was made with respect to their viability. Thus, his motion is DENIED. If 4 Plaintiff intends to pursue his state law claims, he may do so only in state court. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: August 4, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28