In Dolenz v. Akin, No. 3:95-CV-1605-P, 1997 WL 21388 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 1997) (mem. op. & order), aff'd 129 F.3d 612 (5th Cir. 1997), the plaintiff sued for civil rights violations under title 42, section 1983 of the United States Code and for false imprisonment under state law. After dismissing the federal claim under rule of civil procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, the court chose not to retain its jurisdiction over the "pendent state-law false imprisonment claims." In the court's order, Judge Solis stated that, although the case was set for trial in the "near future," it had not progressed very far since discovery had been stayed throughout the proceeding and that "consequently, the case is at an early stage and there has not yet been a substantial commitment of federal judicial resources." Id. Judge Solis then stated that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness did not require exercising pendent jurisdiction, id. (citing La Porte Constr. Co. v. Bayshore Nat'l Bank, 805 F.2d 1254, 1257 (5th Cir. 1986)), and that the consideration of comity "obviously" weighed against exercising pendent jurisdiction. Id. As a result, Judge Solis dismissed Dolenz's state law claims without prejudice.