402 F. App'x 107
6th Cir.2010Background
- Moore, incarcerated, sued Coffee County in state court for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment and for Tennessee negligence.
- Defendants removed to the Eastern District of Tennessee and moved for summary judgment.
- Moore failed to respond; the district court granted summary judgment, dismissing federal claims with prejudice and pendent state claims without prejudice.
- Moore moved under Rule 59(e) to remand the pendent state claims, arguing dismissal without prejudice barred refiling due to the statute of limitations.
- The district court denied the Rule 59(e) motion, and Moore appealed challenging both the dismissal of pendent claims and denial of remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing pendent state claims without prejudice | Moore argues remand was appropriate due to timeliness barriers. | Court properly exercised discretion under §1367(c)(3) to dismiss without prejudice or remand, Moore failed to request remand pre-judgment. | No abuse; dismissal without prejudice proper. |
| Whether the Rule 59(e) denial for remand was proper | Denial effected manifest injustice by foreclosing refiling due to statute limits. | Rule 59(e) not a vehicle to raise issues that could have been raised before judgment; savings statute discussed. | No abuse; Rule 59(e) properly denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dobbs-Weinstein v. Vanderbilt Univ., 185 F.3d 542 (6th Cir. 1999) (discretion whether to dismiss pendent claims or remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3))
- Long v. Bando Mfg. of Am., Inc., 201 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2000) (discretion to remand pendent state claims)
- Russell v. GTE Gov’t Sys. Corp., 141 F. App’x 429 (6th Cir. 2005) (Rule 59(e) not vehicle to raise arguments available before judgment)
- Jinks v. Richland Cnty., 538 U.S. 456 (2003) (saves county-counties via § 1367(d) applicability)
- Lynn v. City of Jackson, 63 S.W.3d 332 (Tenn. 2001) (state savings statutes applicability to local government; pre-Jinks line of cases discussed)
- Nance v. City of Knoxville, 883 S.W.2d 629 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (state savings statutes not applicable to suits against state (pre-Jinks context))
- Farmer v. Tenn. Dep’t of Safety, 228 S.W.3d 96 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (state savings statutes inapplicable to suits against state (pre-Jinks context))