Call

Call v. Badgley

Good Law
254 F. Supp. 3d 1051·2017 WL 2214960·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76943
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 19, 2017Case No.15-cv-03353-HSGCalifornia8,826 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilliam, J.

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART AND REMANDING REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS

Plaintiff Jason Call brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law *1056 against Humboldt County and individual officers employed by the State of California, Humboldt County, and the City of Eureka (collectively, “Defendants”), following the execution of a search warrant at his home. 1 Pending before this Court are two motions for summary judgment filed by the State of California defendants, Dkt. No. 77, and the Humboldt County and City of Eureka defendants, Dkt. No. 94. For the reasons articulated below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining causes of action, all of which arise under state law, so those causes of action are REMANDED to Humboldt County Superior Court, case no. DR150282.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The relevant facts giving rise to this lawsuit are generally undisputed, except where indicated below.

1. Obtaining Search Warrant

In 2011, State Defendant Nelsen of the California Department of Justice was investigating non-party Ryan Hutson as a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.