The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 9 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLENN ROSADO, No. 19-55341
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
3:18-cv-00265-H-KSC
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: LIPEZ,*** RAWLINSON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Glenn Rosado, a revenue officer for the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”),
appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of San Diego
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Kermit V. Lipez, United States Circuit Judge for the
First Circuit, sitting by designation.
County and San Diego County Sheriff’s deputies Steinmeyer, Keller, and Wade
(collectively “Defendants”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
1. Rosado argues that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by
improperly detaining him after the deputies received a report that Rosado was
running a tax scheme.1 Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1)
the officers’ conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly
established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S.
223, 232 (2009). We have “discretion in deciding which of the two prongs” to
address first. Id. at 236. We find that Defendants did not violate Rosado’s
constitutional rights.
After making contact with Rosado, the deputies diligently pursued their
investigation to “confirm or dispel their suspicions.” United States v. Sharpe, 470
U.S. 675, 686 (1985) (“In assessing whether a detention is too long in duration to
be justified as an investigative stop, we consider it appropriate to examine whether
the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or
1
Rosado also argues that his detention morphed into an arrest. However,
considering the totality of the circumstances, Rosado’s detention was minimally
invasive and was “reasonable given the specific circumstances.” Washington v.
Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181, 1185 (9th Cir. 1996) (emphasis omitted).
2
dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the
defendant.”). Once the deputies confirmed that Rosado was in fact an IRS agent,
they released him without unreasonable delay. Therefore, Rosado’s constitutional
rights were not violated, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.2
2. Once the district court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction,” it may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the
remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Therefore, “the district court
did not err in declining to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims.” Sweaney v. Ada Cty., 119 F.3d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED
2
Because we conclude that the deputies did not violate Rosado’s
constitutional rights, we need not address the clearly established prong of the
qualified immunity test.
3