supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state-law claims and will remand those claims to state court. I. YOUNG CANNOT PLAUSIBLY ALLEGE A § 1983 CLAIM AGAINST THE APD. The Tenth Circuit has stated that “police departments ... are not suable entities under § 1983, because they lack legal identifies apart from the municipality.” Ketchum v. Albuquerque Police Dep’t, No. CIV 91-2200, 1992 WL 51481, at *2 (10th Cir. Mar. 12, 1992) (unpublished). See Henry v. Albuquerque Police Dep’t, 49 Fed.Appx. 272, 274 n. 1 (10th Cir.2002) (unpublished)(“The district court properly relied on an unpublished decision from this court holding that the Albuquerque Police Department lacks a legal identity apart from the City of Albuquerque.”); Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424, 444 (10th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the United States District Court
holding that a police department is not a person within the meaning of section 1983 holding that a city manager was the final policymaker for purposes of section 1983 liability because of provisions in the norfolk city code requiring that all orders rules and regulations applicable to the entire police department must be approved by the city manager other than some police standard operating procedures holding that the city of denver police department is not a suable entity holding that state and its officers sued in their official capacity for damages are not persons suable under  1983 holding that the pittsburgh police department did not illegally terminate an officers hla benefits and that the police department was entitled to a subrogation interest against the officers thirdparty settlement