IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ADAM MICHAEL HORSTMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF HILLSBORO, a municipal 

corporation; DAVID BONN; BRIAN 

WILBER; and TED SCHRADER, 

Defendants. 

BROWN, Senior Judge. 

3:15-cv-00203-PK 

ORDER 

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. The matter is now 

before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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 Bonn1 ), and Plaintiff asserts 

his malicious prosecution claims against only Defendants Bonn and 

City of Hillsboro. 

1 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. 

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: "Even assuming that the 

2 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." Memorandum Opinion 

at 3. 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." Schultz v. 

Sundberg, 759 F.2d 714, 718 (9th Cir. 1985). 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 /(j'l day of August, 2018. 

7 - ORDER