Noble v. White

• Decision Date: 02 August 1993
• Docket Number: No. 93-7032,93-7032
• Citation: 996 F.2d 797
• Parties: 84 Ed. Law Rep. 77 John C. NOBLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. F.A. WHITE, Jr. and Claiborne County Mississippi Board of Election Commissioners, Defendants, F.A. White, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 797

996 F.2d 797

84 Ed. Law Rep. 77

John C. NOBLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. F.A. WHITE, Jr. and Claiborne County Mississippi Board of Election Commissioners, Defendants F.A. White, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-7032

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 2, 1993.

Sorie S. Tarawally, Owens Law Firm, Jackson, MS, for defendant-appellant.

Carroll Rhodes, Hazlehurst, MS, for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Before GOLDBERG, JOLLY, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

F.A. White defeated John C. Noble in an election for the office of Claiborne County Superintendent of Education. Following the election, Noble filed suit in Mississippi state court against White and the County Board of Election Commissioners, alleging voting irregularities in violation of federal and state law. White removed the case to federal court. Prior to the commencement of trial, the district court dismissed Noble's federal claims with prejudice and remanded Noble's remaining state claim to the state court. White appeals from the district court's order remanding the state claim. We affirm.

FACTS

On November 5, 1991, F.A. White and John C. Noble competed in an election for the office of Claiborne County Superintendent of Education. The County Board of Election Commissioners declared White the winner of the election by a margin of 52 votes.

Noble challenged the results of the election in Mississippi state court under three causes of action. Noble's first cause of action alleged that Mississippi's election laws were violated inter alia by the following voting irregularities: (1) a void ballot went through the voting machine three times and was counted for White; (2) one precinct had four more votes than voters; (3) a valid ballot on behalf of the petitioner was not counted; (4) the voting machines malfunctioned at the Alcorn precinct and polls were closed thirty minutes early thereby preventing 60 of Noble's supporters from voting; (5) absentee ballots were improperly counted; and (6) a ballot box was returned to the courthouse without a seal.

Noble's second cause of action alleged that the early closing of the polls at the Alcorn precinct, as alleged in Count 1, violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. Noble's third cause of action alleged that the early closing of the polls at the Alcorn precinct deprived sixty voters of their 14th amendment right to due process.

On the basis of Noble's federal law causes of action, White removed the case to federal court. Prior to the commencement of trial, the district court raised concerns about plaintiff's standing to bring the federal claims and the plaintiff voluntarily moved to dismiss both of his federal claims. Upon plaintiff's motion, the district court dismissed plaintiff's federal claims with prejudice and remanded the remaining state law claim to the state court in which the case was originally filed. ¹ Defendants opposed the remand of the state claim and filed a motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment and for summary judgment as to all claims. The district court denied defendants' motion. On appeal, White and the Board of Election Commissioners claim that the district court abused its discretion by remanding Noble's state cause of action to the state court.

ANALYSIS

Federal courts may, under limited circumstances, exercise jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) provides:

in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

While under § 1367(a) a district court properly exercises supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are part of the same case or controversy over which the district court has original jurisdiction, § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if ... the district court had dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." District courts enjoy wide discretion in determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim once all federal claims are dismissed. The Commentary to § 1367(c)(3) explains:

the idea here is that once the crutch is removed- the claim that supports the supplemental jurisdiction of the other claim or claims- the other should not remain for adjudication ... [J]udicial discretion here is a particularly important element. Here the 'may' in 'may decline' has a major role to play. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 Practice Commentary (West Supp.1993).

We do not lightly disturb a district court's § 1367(c)(3) determination to remand state law claims. See, e.g., Rhyne v. Henderson County, 973 F.2d 386, 395 (5th Cir.1992) ("the district court has properly dismissed all of the federal questions that gave it original jurisdiction in this case. Therefore, we find that the district court's dismissal of the state-law claims was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)"); Cook, Perkiss & Liehe Inc. v. Northern California Collection Serv., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir.1990).

The Supreme Court in United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, emphasized that "[n]eedless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by...