Porter v. City of Davis Police Department et al

Filing 71

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/20/2019 DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in defendants' favor and close the case in its entirety. In effect, the Circuit's decision resolves the sole remaining issue in this case in defendants' favor; therefore, judgment must be entered for defendants. CASE CLOSED. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LASONJA PORTER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-02984-KJM-DB

v.

ORDER

CITY OF DAVIS POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On January 25, 2018, the court denied in part defendants’ motion for summary

18
19

judgment as to plaintiff’s § 1983 claim based on Fourth Amendment violations through the use of

20

handcuffs in a Terry1 stop. ECF No. 57. Specifically, the court explained that “although the

21

[Terry] stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, a reasonable juror could find the decision to

22

handcuff plaintiff, despite her total compliance and the absence of any particularized risk to the

23

officers, was not reasonable.” Id. at 5. On February 23, 2018, defendants appealed the court’s

24

decision, ECF No. 60, and on February 13, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued a dispositional

25

memorandum reversing this court’s decision and remanding the case for further proceedings.

26

ECF No. 68. The Circuit explained, “The court was correct in determining that handcuffing is not

27
28

1

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
1

1

part of a routine Terry stop, but that is only relevant to a determination of whether or not the act

2

of handcuffing transformed a Terry stop into an arrest without probable cause, not whether the

3

Terry stop itself was unreasonable.” Id. at 3–4. Plaintiff forfeited any argument that the stop had

4

been transformed into an arrest. Id. at 4. The Circuit’s judgment took effect on March 7, 2019.

5

ECF No. 69.

6

In effect, the Circuit’s decision resolves the sole remaining issue in this case in

7

defendants’ favor; therefore, judgment must be entered for defendants. The Clerk of Court is

8

directed to enter judgment in defendants’ favor and close the case in its entirety.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 20, 2019.

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2