IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
April 9, 2008
SANDRA L. GOOD, PLAINTIFF
JOHN TRISH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 9th day of April, 2008, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. 46),*fn1 asking the court to compel the return photographs that were "illegally-taken" by defendant John Trish and to correct certain records maintained by defendant Borough of Steelton, and it appearing that plaintiff's motion alleges that defendant John Trish engaged in tortious or criminal activity, and the court finding that these allegations arise under Pennsylvania law and do not share a "common nucleus of operative facts" with plaintiff's underlying federal claims which relate solely to the Borough of Steelton's efforts to bring plaintiff's sidewalk into compliance with local ordinances, Lyon v. Whisman, 45 F.3d 758, 759-60 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)), and it further appearing that plaintiff's remaining allegations do not appear on the face of her second amended complaint in the above-captioned action,*fn2 it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims that defendant John Trish engaged in tortious or criminal activity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
2. The motion to compel (Doc. 46) is CONSTRUED as a motion for injunction and is DENIED without prejudice to plaintiff's right to seek leave to supplement or amend her complaint.