indifference, Plaintiff asserts one final claim: namely, a Monell claim based on the City's alleged failure to take adequate steps to assure a reasonable level of security for inmates of GMDC. As explained in his papers, "Plaintiff intends to prove that the injuries that he suffered by being stabbed and cut by other inmates were the result of Department of Correction's failure to conduct adequate searches of the dormitory facilities at GMDC for contraband weapons." Pl. Mem. Opp'n at 10.
Not "all harm-causing municipal policies are actionable under § 1983" nor are "all such policies . . . unconstitutional." Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 123, 117 L. Ed. 2d 261, 112 S. Ct. 1061 (1992). Rather, such municipal liability necessarily depends upon a finding that a city employee violated a plaintiff's constitutional rights. Heller, 475 U.S. at 799; Dodd, 827 F.2d at 8; Collins, 503 U.S. at 123 ("if a city employee violates another's constitutional rights, the city may be liable if it had a policy or custom of failing to train its employees and that failure to train caused the constitutional violation"). Accordingly, this final Monell claim cannot survive in light of the above rulings granting summary judgment on the underlying § 1983 claims in favor of the individual defendants named in the Complaint.
D. State-Law Claims
Having dismissed all of plaintiff's federal claims, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss Plaintiff's state-law claims, since diversity jurisdiction is lacking. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 16 L. Ed. 2d 218, 86 S. Ct. 1130 (1966). While such a dismissal is not mandatory where the federal claims are dismissed before trial, see Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 403-405, 25 L. Ed. 2d 442, 90 S. Ct. 1207 (1970), the Court finds that the balance of the relevant factors -- judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity -- point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. See Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 349-51, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720, 108 S. Ct. 614 (1988) ("When the balance of these factors indicates that a case properly belongs in state court, as when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice"; and further explaining that Gibbs recognized "that in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims"). Accordingly, Plaintiff's state law claims are hereby dismissed, without prejudice.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all federal claims is hereby GRANTED in its entirety.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice is hereby GRANTED.
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for the Defendants on all federal claims, dismiss the remainder of the Complaint, and close the case statistically.
DATED: New York, New York
February 22, 1996
DEBORAH A. BATTS