N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GLENN R OSADO,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; e t a l.,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 19-55341 D.C . No. 3:18-c v-00265-H-KSC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M arily n L. Huff, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 2, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : LIPEZ, * ** R

AW LINSON, a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s . Gle nn R osa do, a

re ve nue offic e r for the Inte rna l R e ve n ue Se rvic e (“ IR S” ),
a ppe a ls thedistric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Sa n Die go 

# FIL ED

JUN 9 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ke rm it V. Lipe z , Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the First C irc uit, sitting by

de signa tion.C ounty

an d San Die go C ounty

She riff’ s de p utie s Ste inm e y e r, Ke l le r, and W a de (c olle c tive ly

“ De fe nda

nts” ). W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we
a ffirm
. 1. R osa do a

rgue s tha t De fe nda nts viola te d his c onstitutiona

l rights by im prope rly de ta i ning him

a fte r the de putie s re c e ive d a re port tha t R osa do wa s running a tax sc he m e . 1 De fe nda

nts a re e ntitle d to qua lifie d im

m unity unle ss: (1) the o ffic e rs’ c onduc t viola te d a c onstitutiona

l right, a n d (2) the right wa s c le arly
e sta blishe d at the tim e of the a lle ge d m isc onduc t. Pe arson v . C allahan , 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). W e have “ disc re tion in de c iding whic h of the two prongs”to
a ddre s s first. Id. at 236. W e find tha t De fe n da nts did not viola

te R osa do’ s
c onstitutiona

l rights. Afte r m aking c onta c t with Rosa do, the de putie s diligently pursue d the ir inve stiga tion to “ c onfirm

or dispe l the ir suspic ions.” U nite d State

s v . Sharpe , 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985) (“ In a s se ssing whe t he r a de te ntion is too long in dura tion to be justifie d a s a

n inve stiga

tive stop, wec onside r it a ppropria te to e xam ine whe the r the p olic e dilige nt ly

pursue d a

m e a ns of inve stiga

tion tha t wa s like ly

to c onfirm

or

1 R osa do a lso a

rgue s tha t his de te ntion morphe d into a n a rre st. Howe ve r, c onside ring thetota lity of the c irc um sta nc e s, R osa do’ s de te ntion wa s m inim a lly inva sive and wa s “ re a sona ble give n the spe c ific c irc um s ta nc e s.” W ashington v

. Lambe rt , 98 F.3d 1181, 1185 (9th C i r. 1996) (e m pha sis omitte d). 2dispe l the ir suspic ions quic kly , during whic h tim e it wa s ne c e ssa ry to de ta i n the de fe nda nt.” ). Onc e the de putie s c onfirm e d tha t R osa do wa s in fa c t a

n IR S a ge nt, the y re le a se d him

without unre a sona

ble de la y . The re fore , R o sa d o’ s c onstitutiona l rights we re not viola

te d, a nd De fe nda

nts a re e ntitle d to qua lifie d im

m unity
. 2 2. Onc e the distric t c ourt ha s “ dism isse d a ll c l a im s ove r whic h it ha s origina l jurisdic tion,”it m ay

“ de c l ine to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion” ove r the
re m a ining sta

te la w c la im s. 28 U.S.C . § 1367(c )(3). The re fore , “ the distric t c ourt did not err in de c lining to e xe rc ise its supplem e nta l jurisdic tion ove r the sta te la w
c la im s.” Sw e ane

y v . Ada C ty
. , 119 F.3d 1385, 1393 (9th C ir. 1997). AFFIRM E D

2 B e c a use we c onc lude that the de putie s did not viola te R osa do’ s c onstitutiona

l rights, wene e d not a ddre ss thec le arly e sta blishe d prong of the qua lifie d im

m unity te st. 3