DAVID OSOLINSKI V. MARISA BIGOT, No. 15-16219 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 1 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID N. OSOLINSKI, No. Plaintiff - Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-16219 D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01895-AWISAB v. MEMORANDUM* MARISA BIGOT; DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2016** Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. California civil detainee David N. Osolinski appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d * 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). 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. The district court properly dismissed Osolinski’s Fourth Amendment claim because Osolinski failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979) (setting forth elements); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). The district court dismissed Osolinski’s state law claims on the ground that violations of state law do not give rise to a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, California’s constitution provides a right of privacy cause of action, see Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., 211 P.3d 1063, 1073 (Cal. 2009), and Osolinski expressly brought such a claim pursuant to the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. On remand, the district court should exercise its discretion as to whether it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Osolinski’s state law claims. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. 2 15-16219

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.