1 2 3 4 5 6 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 DEMETRICE SIGHTLER, CASE NO. 15cv2235-LAB (MSB)

11 Plaintiff,

ORDER ON REMAND

12 vs. 13 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 14 Defendants.

15 In March 2018, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion 16 for Summary Judgment. As relevant here, the Court found that the City of San Diego was 17 not liable for harms to Plaintiff Demetrice Sightler, but that there were triable issues of 18 fact as to whether the individual officers were liable. It also held that the individual officers 19 were not entitled to qualified immunity. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that while 20 Sightler plausibly alleged the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights, he had not 21 identified “sufficiently specific constitutional precedents to alert [Defendants that their] 22 particular conduct was unlawful.” Shafer v. Cty. of Santa Barbara, 868 F.3d 1110, 1118 23 (9th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the appellate court reversed with directions to enter 24 judgment in favor of the individual officers. 25 In light of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, no further proceedings are necessary in this 26 Court. The clerk is directed to (1) spread the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, (2) enter judgment 27 in favor of the City of San Diego and Officers Nisleit, McClain, Pimienta, Johnson, Longen, 28 1 || and Harbin, and (3) close the case. The hearing currently scheduled for November 25, 2 || 2019 is VACATED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: October 21, 2019 lau / A (Ay wy 5 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS 6 Chief United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28