Lunceford v. Bigman

Filing 27

ORDER: Denying Motion for Summary Judgment 12 ; Granting Motion for Summary Judgment 14 ; Adopting Findings and Recommendation 22 . Signed on 9/21/2017 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION JASON LUNCEFORD Case No. 1: 16-cv-02169-CL ORDER Plaintiff, vs. STEPHANIE BIGMAN, in her individual and official capacity Defendant. AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 22) on 7/24/2017. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 ); lvlcDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business lvlachines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). Timely objections and a response have been filed by the parties. PAGEl-ORDER I find no e1rnr and concur with Magistrate Judge Clarke's analysis of the factual and legal issues in this case. Plaintiff filed objections on several grounds, including F&R's conclusion that Defendant's seizure of Plaintiffs person was not unreasonable. He argued that reasonableness should have no bearing on the Fomth Amendment analysis, and the traffic stop was measurably extended as a matter of fact because 25 seconds is literally measurable. (doc. 25) While Magistrate Judge Clarke did not cite authority on what would qualify as an unlawfully measurable extension of the stop, the Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, held that a traffic stop extended by three to five minutes for an unrelated inquhy did not measurably extend the traffic stop, and was not unreasonable. United States v. Evans, 445 F.Appx. 29, 31 (9th Cir. 2011). Fmther, Evans reaffomed that reasonableness is part of the Fourth Amendment inquiry. Citing Ninth Circuit precedent, the Comt opined that "[r]ather than bright-line simplification, the Constitution requires a reasonableness analysis." Id. (quoting United States v. Turvin, 517 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2008)). 1 Magistrate Judge Clarke was coU'ect to rely upon reasonableness rather than a bright-line literal measurability rule. Therefore, I adopt Magistrate Judge Clarke's F&R (doc. 22.) in its entirety. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 14) is GRANTED, and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (doc.12) is DENIED. Accordingly, this action is dismissed, with prejudice. I! I Ill I II 1 The Court in Turvin declared that "[w]e will not accept a bright-line rule that questions are unreasonable ifthe officer pauses in the ticket-writing process in order to ask them. The Supreme Comt has 'consistently eschewed bright-line rules [in the Fomth Amendment context], instead emphasizing the fact-specific nature of the reasonableness inquiry."' Id at 1103; (quoting Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 (1996)). PAGE 2 -ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. :?J\ Dated thi~ day of September, 2017. Ann Aiken United States District Judge PAGE 3-0RDER

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?