LANCE AFRICK, Magistrate Judge
The Court previously granted three Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss filed by defendant Cindy Williams, defendants Edith Morris and Bernadette Lee, and defendant the City of New Orleans on the basis that plaintiffs' § 1983 claims are time barred. The Court further gave plaintiffs, Debra Cassibry and MLC, notice that it would dismiss the claims against the remaining defendants, John Cassibry, Betty Johnson, Napoleon Cassibry, Louis Ardouina, and the Cassibry Children Irrevocable Trust, on the same ground unless an opposition was filed which provided a legal basis to consider plaintiffs' claims.
Rec. Doc. No. 22.
Rec. Doc. No. 21.
Rec. Doc. No. 31.
On February 15, 2005, the Court granted plaintiffs an extension of 10 days to file an opposition, but plaintiffs did not file an opposition. Instead, plaintiffs filed a "memorandum in support of violation of Louisiana law." Plaintiffs also filed a motion to vacate the order dismissing Williams, Morris, Lee, and the City of New Orleans and a motion to strike. Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motions and memoranda, the Court finds no legal basis to vacate its order or to strike any documents in this action. Furthermore, because plaintiffs have not provided the Court any reason not to enter summary judgment in favor of all remaining defendants on the ground that plaintiffs' § 1983 claims were prescribed when this lawsuit was filed and because it is clear from the face of plaintiffs' complaint that their § 1983 claims were prescribed at the time this action was filed,
Rec. Doc. No. 43. Accordingly, plaintiffs opposition was due on February 28, 2005.
On March 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed their "memorandum in support of violation fo Louisiana law." Rec. Doc. No. 57. The memo represents that Debra Cassibry has a medical condition which excuses her from work. No doctor's note was attached to the filing. Furthermore, the memorandum does not address the issue of which state's law applies to plaintiffs' § 1983 claims.
Rec. Doc. No. 35. Plaintiffs assert that they "were never notified of any Motion before the Court" Id. However, in the very next sentence, plaintiffs concede that they received a motion to dismiss from the City of New Orleans, but that "it was not taken seriously." Id. Because the basis for dismissal urged by the City of New Orleans was the same basis upon which this Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims against the other defendants, plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the defendants' alleged failure to serve the other two motions to dismiss.
On February 15, 2005, defendant Cindy Williams filed an opposition. Rec. Doc. No. 48. A United States Postal Service "Track and Confirm" print out appears to show that Williams's opposition was delivered and signed for by "D Cassibry" on December 8, 2004. Id. at exhibit 3.
On February 22, 2005, defendants Edith Morris and Bernadette Lee filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion to vacate which indicated that their motion to dismiss was mailed to plaintiffs on December 3, 2004. Rec. Doc. No. 49.
Rec. Doc. No. 36. Plaintiffs' motion to strike "all documents entered in this cause except the one document that gave rise to this cause of action which is the Petition for Enforcement of Foreign Judgment together with the attached INVALID CIVIL WARRANT" contains no legal authorities or any legal basis for this motion.
Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion to modify the date of the alleged incident giving rise to their claims from 2001 to 2002, which was denied as ex parte. Even with the benefit of the additional year, plaintiffs original complaint was filed in July, 2004, more than one year after the alleged incident occurred. Because Louisiana is the forum state and because the alleged acts giving rise to plaintiffs' § 1983 claims occurred in New Orleans, Louisiana, the Court applies Louisiana's one year prescriptive period to this action. See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 109 S. Ct. 573, 102 L. Ed.2d 594 (1989); Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 514-515 (5th Cir. 1995) ("Congress has not provided a statute of limitations in § 1983 cases; therefore, federal courts borrow the forum state's general personal injury limitations period"). Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims are time barred on the face of the complaint.
Plaintiffs motion to strike "all documents entered in this cause" further supports the Court's finding that plaintiffs' claims are time barred under Louisiana's one year prescriptive period. In that motion, plaintiffs assert that it was the enforcement of an allegedly invalid civil warrant by the New Orleans Police Department and others which gave rise to plaintiffs' § 1983 claims. As alleged in the complaint (amended and original) and reiterated in plaintiffs' motion, these actions occurred in the Eastern District of Louisiana — not Mississippi — notwithstanding the allegation that defendants' actions were predicated on a Mississippi warrant.
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs' § 1983 claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as time barred.
Finally, having dismissed all claims over which a court had original jurisdiction, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Priester, 354 F.3d 414, 425 (5th Cir. 2004) (stating "[i]n cases where all of the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the general rule is that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction"). As the Supreme Court has stated:
[n]eedless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of the applicable law. . . . Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims
should be dismissed as well.
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S. Ct. 1130, 16 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1966).
The Court has not addressed the merits of plaintiffs' state law claims and there has been no commitment of judicial resources to the state law claims that would weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court finds that the rule counseling against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction applies in this situation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent plaintiffs set forth state law causes of action against any defendant, plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to vacate the Court's order dismissing the City of New Orleans, Cindy Williams, Edith Morris, and Bernadette R. Lee is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to strike is DENIED.