From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burgett v. Sanborn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Aug 4, 2015
Case No. 6:13-cv-1358-TC (D. Or. Aug. 4, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 6:13-cv-1358-TC

08-04-2015

PAUL R. BURGETT, Plaintiff, v. SEAN SANBORN, JANIE BLUE, and the CITY OF COQUILLE, a political Subdivision of the State of Oregon, Defendants.


ORDER :

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 62), and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, I have reviewed the file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I conclude the report is correct.

It is clear Officer Sanborn had reasonable suspicion to pull plaintiff Paul Burgett over. It is also clear that when questioning and administering tests to Burgett, Officer Sanborn obtained probable cause to arrest Burgett for DUII. Equally clear was Judge Coffin's discussion regarding why plaintiff's proffered evidence, including his two expert reports, fail to create a genuine issue of material fact. Burgett still appears to confuse a failure to convict with the absence of probable cause.

With one exception, I adopt Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation. Judge Coffin recommends declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Burgett's state law claim of malicious prosecution. In most cases, I would agree. This case is different. In Oregon, a malicious prosecution claim requires a plaintiff to establish the absence of probable cause. Teegarden v. State ex rel. Oregon Youth Auth., 270 Or. App. 373, 383 (2015). As demonstrated in Judge Coffin's thorough analysis, Sanborn had probable cause to arrest Burgett for DUII. Therefore, Burgett's claim for malicious prosecution necessarily fails. Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the malicious prosecution claim.

I adopt the Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 62). Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 37, is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2015.

/s/ Michael J. McShane

Michael J. McShane

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Burgett v. Sanborn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Aug 4, 2015
Case No. 6:13-cv-1358-TC (D. Or. Aug. 4, 2015)
Case details for

Burgett v. Sanborn

Case Details

Full title:PAUL R. BURGETT, Plaintiff, v. SEAN SANBORN, JANIE BLUE, and the CITY OF…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Aug 4, 2015

Citations

Case No. 6:13-cv-1358-TC (D. Or. Aug. 4, 2015)