Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff’s remaining federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and the FACE Act for failure to state a claim. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.
Holdings
- The amended complaint did not plausibly state federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) or the FACE Act against the non-moving defendants, and those claims were dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and dismissed those claims without prejudice.
Questions Presented
- Whether the amended complaint stated plausible federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and the FACE Act against the non-moving defendants.
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (6)
- Lindsay v. United States, 4 F.4th 292, 294 (5th Cir. 2021)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)(followed)
- Heinze v. Tesco Corp., 971 F.3d 475, 479 (5th Cir. 2020)(followed)
- Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 27 (2025)(followed)
- Heggemeier v. Caldwell Cnty., 826 F.3d 861, 872 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…