Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01487/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01487-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 06CV1487

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL BRYAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV1487-LAB (PCL)

ORDER ON MOTION FOR

vs. CLARIFICATION

BRYAN MacPHERSON, PAUL CROOK,

CORONADO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

CORONADO, DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

On November 30, 2010, the Ninth Circuit panel, ruling on Defendants’ interlocutory

appeal, reconsidered its earlier ruling, determined that Defendant MacPherson was entitled

as a matter of law to qualified immunity, and reversed this Court’s denial of his motion for

summary judgment. After receiving the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, the Court on February 3

dismissed the complaint without specifying whether dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Bryan then filed an ex parte application to clarify the order of dismissal or, in the

alternative, for reconsideration of the dismissal. The motion points out Bryan was also

bringing supplemental state claims, which were not the subject of the appeal. Bryan agrees

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01487-LAB-CAB Document 110 Filed 02/11/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Bryan correctly says this is exclusively a state law claim. While Bryan’s § 52.1 claim is in 1

part based on an alleged violation of his U.S. constitutional rights, that claim can be resolved on the

basis of either federal or state law. Even though § 52.1 in part incorporates a federal standard,

adjudication of his § 52.1 claim does not necessarily depend on resolution of a federal question. See

Rains v. Criterion Systems, Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 345-46 & n.7 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding no federal

question jurisdiction, where claim was based on state statute incorporating standards found in both

federal and state law).

- 2 - 06CV1487

his claims for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of

the Unruh Civil Rights Act, § 52.1, arise under state law.1

Because all federal claims in this case were dismissed before trial, the state claims

are dismissed as well. United Mine Workers of Amer. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

But the state claims are dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

To the extent Bryan’s motion seeks reconsideration, it is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 10, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01487-LAB-CAB Document 110 Filed 02/11/11 Page 2 of 2