Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Horstman v. City of Hillsboro

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

July 10, 2018

ADAM MICHAEL HORSTMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF HILLSBORO, et al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

          PUAL PAPAK, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         In this civil rights action, Plaintiff Adam Horstman asserts claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution under state and federal law against Defendant police officers David Bonn, Brian Wilber, and Ted Schrader (the Individual Defendants), and the City of Hillsboro. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment, contending that the Individual Defendants lacked probable cause to arrest him, ECF No. 46. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. ECF No. 50.

         This court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the City of Hillsboro, and otherwise denied the motion, concluding that the Individual Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer would not have believed probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff. Horstman v. City of Hillsboro, 2016 WL 8673071 (D. Or. Nov. 4, 2016) (Horstman I) (adopting Findings and Recommendation, ECF No. 72), This court granted Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in part, concluding that the Individual Defendants lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, and that the Individual Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

         On interlocutory appeal of the qualified immunity ruling only, the Ninth Circuit reversed. Horstman v. City of Hillsboro, 718 Fed.Appx. 546, 547 (9th Cir. 2018) (Horstman II). On remand, the parties disagree on the scope of the Ninth Circuit's memorandum disposition. I conclude that the Ninth Circuit decision grants the Individual Defendants qualified immunity on both federal claims, rather than the false arrest claim only as Plaintiff argues. This leaves only the two state law claims at issue. I conclude that this court should not exercise supplementary jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims, which should be dismissed without prejudice. Judgment should be entered accordingly.

         DISCUSSION

         I. The Ninth Circuit's Ruling

         Plaintiff contends that the Ninth Circuit did not reverse this court's ruling that the Individual Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on the malicious prosecution claim. Defendants disagree.

         The Ninth Circuit's memorandum disposition states, "Even assuming that the Individual Defendants lacked probable cause to arrest [Plaintiff], the district court erred in concluding that they violated a clearly established constitutional right." Horstman II, at 547, The Ninth Circuit specifically mentioned the malicious prosecution claim only once, stating that "Defendant Bonn did not waive his qualified immunity argument as to the malicious prosecution claim." Id. at 548. Bonn was a defendant only in relation to Plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim, so there would be no reason to mention this ruling as to Bonn if the Ninth Circuit was not also addressing the malicious prosecution claim. I agree with Defendants that the Ninth Circuit intended to hold that the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on both federal claims. Combining the Ninth Circuit's ruling granting qualified immunity with this court's ruling that the City is entitled to summary judgment on the federal claims, there are no longer any federal claims remaining to be tried.

         II. Exercise of Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Remaining State Law Claims

         The next issue is whether this court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. This court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.