Angelo Dahlia v. City of Burbank et al

Filing 88

JUDGMENT by Judge Margaret M. Morrow. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED That plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights is dismissed against all defendant with prejudice; That plaintiff's remaining claims against all defendants are dismissed without prejudice; and That the action be, and it hereby is, dismissed. (bp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ANGELO DAHLIA,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

vs.
CITY OF BURBANK, a municipal
corporation; TIM STEHR, individually
and as Chief of Police of the Burbank
Police Department; OMAR
RODRIGUEZ, individually and as a
Lieutenant of the Burbank Police
Department; JON MURPHY, individually
and as a Lieutenant of the Burbank Police
Department; EDGAR PENARANDA,
individually and as a Sergeant of the
Burbank Police Department; JOSE
DURAN, individually and as a Sergeant
of the Burbank Police Department;
CHRIS CANALES, individually and as a
Detective of the Burbank Police
Department; DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
Defendants.

) CASE NO. CV 09-08453-MMM(JEMx)
)
)
)
) JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

25
26
27
28

On June 18, 2010, the court dismissed plaintiff’s First Amendment claim against all
defendants except defendant Stehr with prejudice. On August 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit reversed

1

the court’s denial of Stehr’s motion for summary judgment in an opinion holding that Stehr was

2

entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s First Amendment claim. Based on that decision,

3

Stehr, like the remaining defendants, is entitled to have judgment entered in his favor on that

4

claim. For the reasons stated in the court’s June 18, 2010 order, the court declines to exercise

5

supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. Accordingly,

6

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

7
8

1.

rights is dismissed against all defendants with prejudice;

9
10

2.

That plaintiff’s remaining claims against all defendants are dismissed without
prejudice; and

11
12

That plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging a violation of his First Amendment

3.

That the action be, and it hereby is, dismissed.

13
14

DATED: August 26, 2013

MARGARET M. MORROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2