United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
PAPAK, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
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.
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
The Ninth Circuit's Ruling
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.
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.
Exercise of Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Remaining State
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
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it
has original ...