Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kinuthia v. Dunby

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

November 6, 2018

NANCY WANJIRU KINUTHIA, #283457, Plaintiff,
v.
DREKA DUNBY, et al., Defendants.

          RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          WALLACE CAPEL, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Nancy Wanjiru Kinuthia, an indigent state inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that three fellow inmates, including Dreka Dunby, spoke to her in a demeaning manner, cursed, and threatened her. Doc. No. 1 at 2-3.

         Upon thorough review of the complaint, the court concludes that Kinuthia's federal claims against her fellow inmates are due to be summarily dismissed in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Federal Claims

         Kinuthia presents claims against three inmates for harassing, demeaning, provoking, and threatening her on October 26, 2018. Under applicable federal law, these claims provide no basis for relief in this cause of action.

         An essential element of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is that a person acting under color of state law committed the asserted constitutional deprivation. American Manufacturers Mutual Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999); Willis v. University Health Services, Inc., 993 F.2d 837, 840 (11th Cir. 1993).

To state a [viable] claim for relief in an action brought under § 1983, [a plaintiff] must establish that [she was] deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law. Like the state-action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, the under-color-of-state-law element of § 1983 excludes from its reach “‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful, '” Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948)).... [Consequently, ] state action requires ... that “the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982); see Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978).”

American Manufacturers, 526 U.S. at 49-50 (footnote omitted). It is clear that inmates are not state actors nor are their actions in any way attributable to the State. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that the claims on which Kinuthia seeks to proceed against her fellow inmates under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 fail to state claims on which relief may be granted and are therefore subject to summary dismissal pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         B. Supplemental Jurisdiction

         Insofar as Kinuthia seeks relief from this court on a pendent state law claim of harassment, she is likewise entitled to no relief. Review of any pendent state tort claim is only appropriate upon exercise of this court's supplemental jurisdiction. In the posture of this case, however, the court concludes that exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state tort claim is inappropriate.

Two factors determine whether state law claims lacking an independent federal jurisdictional basis can be heard in federal court with a federal claim over which the court has jurisdiction. To exercise pendent jurisdiction [or what is now identified as supplemental jurisdiction] over state law claims not otherwise cognizable in federal court, “the court must have jurisdiction over a substantial federal claim and the federal and state claims must derive from a ‘common nucleus of operative fact.'” Jackson v. Stinchcomb, 635 F.2d 462, 470 (5th Cir.1981) (quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966)). See generally C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3567 pp. 443-47 (1975).

L.A. Draper and Son v. Wheelabrator Frye, Inc., 735 F.2d 414, 427 (11th Cir. 1984). The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is completely discretionary. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966). “If the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, Gibbs strongly encourages or even requires ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.