United States District Court, D. Oregon
J. BROWN, UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.
Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (F&R)
(#97) on July 10, 2018, in which he concludes the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeal's decision (Memorandum Opinion)
issued April 11, 2018, grants qualified immunity to the
Defendants David Bonn, Brian Wilber, and Ted Schrader
(Individual Defendants) as to Plaintiff Adam Michael
Horstman's federal claims for false arrest and malicious
prosecution. As to Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims
for false arrest and malicious prosecution, the Magistrate
Judge recommends this Court decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction and dismiss this case without prejudice to
Plaintiff refiling the state claims in state court. Plaintiff
filed timely-Objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) (1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court
must make a de novo determination of that portion of
the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). See also Decker v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d
659, 663 (9th Cir. 2017).
alleges four claims in his First Amended Complaint
(FAC)(#45): false arrest and malicious prosecution in
violation of federal law (Claims One and Three); and false
arrest and malicious prosecution in violation of Oregon state
law (Claims Two and Four). Plaintiff asserts his false arrest
claims against all Defendants (including Defendant
Bonn), and Plaintiff asserts his malicious
prosecution claims against only Defendants Bonn and City of
filed a Motion (#46) for Summary Judgment as to his false
arrest claims against the Individual Defendants on the ground
there was no probable cause to arrest him. In turn,
Defendants filed a Motion (#50) for Summary Judgment against
all of Plaintiff's claims seeking judgment on the ground
that there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff as a matter
of law. Defendants Bonn and City of Hillsboro also challenged
Plaintiff's malicious-prosecution claims on the ground
that Plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of independent
judgment by the state prosecutor who separately determined
there was probable cause to arrest and charge Plaintiff.
these Motions, the Magistrate Judge concluded the Individual
Defendants lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff and were
not entitled to qualified immunity on any claim asserted by
Plaintiff. As a result, the Magistrate Judge recommended this
Court grant Plaintiff s Motion for Summary Judgment and deny
the Individual Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended this Court
conclude the City of Hillsboro was entitled to judgment on
all of Plaintiff's claims on the ground that Plaintiff
did not offer sufficient evidence to support a
Monell claim, and, therefore, the Magistrate Judge
also recommended this Court grant Defendant's Motion as
to the City only and dismiss the claims asserted against the
City. This Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Findings
and Recommendation in their entirety and dismissed only the
claims against Defendant City of Hillsboro.
Individual Defendants appealed the denial of their Motion for
Summary Judgment and asserted this Court erred in denying
them qualified immunity on all of Plaintiff's
Ninth Circuit reversed this Court's decision on the
ground that the Individual Defendants were entitled to
qualified immunity, and the Ninth Circuit remanded the case
for further proceedings in this Court. As noted, the
Magistrate Judge now recommends the federal claims against
the Individual Defendants be dismissed with prejudice on the
basis of qualified immunity and that the Court decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state
contends the Ninth Circuit's ruling did not address
qualified immunity on the malicious prosecution claim, and,
even if all federal claims are dismissed, Plaintiff argues
the Court should retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
Ninth Circuit Ruling
Ninth Circuit stated: "Even assuming that the Individual
Defendants lacked probable cause to arrest Horstman, the
district court erred in concluding that they violated a
clearly established constitutional right." Memorandum
Opinion at 3. The Ninth Circuit concluded: "[W]e cannot
conclude that the Individual Defendants violated a clearly
established constitutional right. The district court erred in
denying qualified immunity to the Individual Defendants.
Defendant Bonn did not waive his qualified immunity argument
as to the malicious prosecution claim." Memorandum
Opinion at 4.
record the Court concludes the Ninth Circuit's qualified
immunity ruling applies to all federal claims asserted by
Plaintiff against the Individual Defendants, including the
federal malicious prosecution claim against Bonn.
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate ...