David N. Osolinski v. Marisa Bigot; Doe

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID N. OSOLINSKI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARISA BIGOT; DOE,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 15-16219
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01895-AWI-
SAB
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
JUN 1 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-16219
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 of 2 --