Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

éi. 3 rp Case 3:00-cv—OO33€6RNC Document 95 Filed 12/E%OO3 Paggdgqjqmj 3P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CQDIQTI
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT "`"' `
***·k*·k*rkrkTH:**·k*#*#**w*i¢**-k**·k*·k**************** --3 F;) li
THOMAS O’CONNOR * Docket No. 3:00 CV 339 ¥(_RNC) .
Fr. Plaintiff- * :5;. i}lf$”l`lillZ'[ CQII ~ RKN l
"" ii: " i·i.i>.l`*Cl"r”0l V-- *
i- ··»» ,,,- tg; ij} * I
O; g _ e»- ;IQ§(NNE B. PIERSON, ET AL. *
.I.. I »',D rj: Defendants. * DECEMBER 2, 2003
` ' q ;. ..;.ife?****k*******·k***1:**%**********'k**k***¤\·********** 5
inf`? itil? i"i;F? ‘.‘- If
\_, rvrorrou FOR JUDGMENT ou THE FIFTH COUNT
g _ ‘ ` AND REMAND OF THE REMAINING COUNTS
( I On January 28, 2000, the plaintiff filed this action in Superior Court. On February
~s
22, 2000, the defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting the Fifth Count j
as the jurisdictional basis for removal. The Fifth Count alleged a federal cause of action
I
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
‘ = ,__ On September 28, 2001, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary
Q ` judgment on the plaintiffs procedural due process theory. On October 31, 2003, the N
2 court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the p|aintiff’s
Q substantive due process theory. _
_ The federal claims have now been adjudicated, but the court’s formal entry of
I
E judgment has been made. Without a final judgment, the case cannot proceed. The `
Q plaintiff now moves that the court grant judgment for the defendants on the Fifth Count
S- and remand the remaining claims to Connecticut Superior Court for further proceedings,
or dismiss them for lack of federal jurisdiction. i
<‘·: l
i l
Q E
·“ l