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)

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measurable extension of the stop, the Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, held that a traffic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