Opinion
Case No. 05-73074.
February 9, 2006
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIM
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on August 9, 2005. Plaintiffs' Complaint contains the following four counts:
Count I Unconstitutional Taking (5th Amendment) Count II Violation of Substantive Due Process (14th Amendment) Count III Violation of Civil Rights ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983) Count IV Action for Mandamus.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's constitutional claims (Counts I, II, and III), because they arise under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Count IV, however, is based upon state law. Although the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if there are "compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction." See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim in this matter. The Court finds that the contemporaneous presentation of Plaintiff's parallel state claim for relief will result in the undue confusion of the jury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); see also Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309, 1315 (E.D. Mich. 1994).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' state law claim of Action for Mandamus (Count IV) is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' constitutional claims (Counts I, II, and III).
IT IS SO ORDERED.