Horstman v. Hillsboro et al

Filing 101

ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 97 . All of Plaintiff's federal claims against all Defendants are Dismissed with prejudice. In the exercise of its discretion, the Court Declines to exercise suppl emental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims and Dismisses this matter without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to assert such state-law claims in the appropriate state court. Signed on 8/16/18 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (gm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ADAM MICHAEL HORSTMAN,
3:15-cv-00203-PK
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.

CITY OF HILLSBORO, a municipal
corporation; DAVID BONN; BRIAN
WILBER; and TED SCHRADER,
Defendants.

BROWN, Senior Judge.

Magistrate 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
1 - ORDER

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.
before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

The matter is now

636(b) (1) and Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When 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).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff 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 1 ) , and Plaintiff asserts
his malicious prosecution claims against only Defendants Bonn and
City of Hillsboro.

The Magistrate Judge stated and Defendants argued ~Bonn
was a defendant only in relation to Plaintiff's malicious
prosecution claim." F&R at 3; Def.s' Resp. to Obj. (#100) at 4.
This statement is incorrect.
See FAC at 9, ~ 37.
1

2 - ORDER

Plaintiff 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.
As to 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 off er 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

3 - ORDER

in their entirety and dismissed only the claims against Defendant
City of Hillsboro.
The 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 claims. 2
The 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 claims.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff 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 state-law
claims.
I.

Ninth Circuit Ruling

The Ninth Circuit stated:

2

"Even assuming that the

Plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal of his claims
against Defendant City of Hillsboro.
4 - ORDER

Individual Defendants lacked probable cause to arrest Horstman,
the district court erred in concluding that they violated a
clearly established constitutional right."
at 3.

Memorandum Opinion

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.

On this 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 Judge's recommendation that all
federal claims be dismissed with prejudice.
II.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Plaintiff also contends the Court should exercise its
discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
remaining state-law claims.
28 U.S.C. § 1637(c) provides the Court may decline to

exercise discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction when the
court has dismissed all claims over which it had original
jurisdiction.

The Magistrate Judge cited the appropriate

standard and recommends this Court decline to exercise

5 - ORDER

supplemental jurisdiction.

The Magistrate Judge notes that even

though this matter has been "pending" in federal court for
three years, much of that time (more than a year) has been
consumed with motion practice and appellate review of the
qualified-immunity issues, and, in any event, the parties have
not engaged in merits discovery and the matter is not even set
for trial in this Court.
This Court also emphasizes that Ninth Circuit precedent
directs that district courts "generally should decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after
the federal claims have been dismissed before trial."
Sundberg,

759 F.2d 714, 718 (9th Cir. 1985).

Schultz v.

See also Acri v.

Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997).
This Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's Objections
and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings
and Recommendation.

The Court also has reviewed the pertinent

portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and
Recommendation (#97) and, therefore, DISMISSES with prejudice all
of Plaintiff's federal claims against all Defendants.

In the

exercise of its discretion, the Court DECLINES to exercise
6 - ORDER

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law
claims and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice to Plaintiff's
right to assert such state-law claims in the appropriate state
court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

7 - ORDER

/(j'l day

of August, 2018.