United for Missouri et al v. St. Charles County et al
||United for Missouri, Dan Rakers, John Doe and Carl Bearden
||St. Charles County and Hope Woodson
||September 14, 2017
||US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
||St. Louis Office
||Charles A. Shaw
|Nature of Suit:
||Other Civil Rights
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|December 5, 2017
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion to Remand Counts II and III and Stay Count I of the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED as follows: The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over th e state law claims in Counts II and III pursuant to the abstention doctrine established in Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941), and will remand those claims to state court for decision. The Court will stay its pro ceedings on plaintiffs' federal constitutional claim in Count I pending decision on the state law claims by the Missouri courts. [Doc. 17]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff John Doe's motion for leave to proceed under a pseudon ym is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. 14] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively close this case, which may be reopened on the motion of any party. Any motion to reopen shall include a statement of all relevant proceedings that have occurred in state court on Counts II and III. An order of partial remand will accompany this memorandum and order. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 12/5/2017. (MRC)
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?