You are on page 1of 17

1

4

UNI'rED S'rAT'ES DI

C()UR~[,

5

EASTERN DIS~rRIC'I' OF

6

'rORE. MARIO DUCEY I

7

NO.

CY-02-3080-LRS

8

9

ORDER GRANTXNG DEFENDANTSF MOTXONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CITY OF YAKIMA, a m\.illicipal

10 corporation, and OFFICERS MATT MEYERS and J. LEE, members of

11 the Yakima Pol Department;

WEST COAST YAKIMA CENTER HOTEL; 12 KEVIN ST, MARTIN; and JOHN

HAILEY,

13

14

iff's Motion to

t f

West

s ~ M~a.=rt

Motion

19

f

4 ).

o

'1'he mot

with o.raL

were

21

22

Oct:ob€n:: 29, 2003,

Pcu:ker

on behalf of

23

'I'avares

on behalf of Defendants West Coast

and

24

Hotel,

St. Mart

on behalf of Defendant O:Eficer Matt Lee;

Helen

25

26

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -- 1

on

fL

4 0, 002, 'I'orr ]\jJ:a.r J !
C' Amer c 1
_)
6 c: and :E Yakima pol
1"
7 Matt and Matt IT. Lee (Lee] fr orn
8 July 30, 2002, The Complaint asserts causes o f action 9 Defendant City, Meyers and Lee, Plaintiff's f and second claims
10 allege illegal search and se i.zur-e in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983.
11 Plaintiff's third claim al conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §1985.
12 Plaintiff's fourth claim asserts munic liabili 42 U.S.C. 13 §1983
14
15 1
6
7'
8
19
0
21 and
22 In 1io

misuse

f f ' fifth La i.m alleges t.a te law torts

(mal

OtIS

on

of

Hot

Martin] ,

110

isormlent

t

I,

ley.

to

ffl

unde r the Pouz-t.h , Fifth and

23 Fourteenth Amendment.s to the

ted States Consti t.ut.Lon , the C

1

24 Acts of 1871,

42 U,S.C. §§1983

1985 for c

1

ions,

26

ORDER GRAN'I'ING DEFENDANTS I MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 2

1.

t

1,

J.

by

Court on

10, 2002

a

Martin

mot

1 , 2003, Defendants Ci

o Yakima

Mat ,J.

6 filed a

for smmnary j

so

12,

003,

7 plaintiff filed a motion to

fy the Court's

Order and for

9 Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add a new cause of action

10 for negligence against Defendants City of Yakima and its off

and to

11 add a claim for trespass against Defendant Westcoast Yakima Center Hotel,

31, 2002 to file mo

the

'rhe

f

t 29, 2

1

mo

1

propos

de

who have

aummar y j

motions, and the propos

cl

22 and
23
24
25
26 are futile for

reasons"

II@ UNDISPUTED FACTS

Seatt

area res

in

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MO,!'IONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMEN'I' - 3

and

iff

to

hotel" Sto Mart

was

off

his

r: . J

to

)"I8 ..

and her

6 Pue

1

the

At the

t.he bax , Ms,

friends

7

Oden and Kevin sr . Martin walked her and her female

to the

8 parking lot a.cross from Pete's. A verbal confrontation amongs t Ms, Pue,

9 her

ends and plaintiff took place, During t.ha t confrontation, Ms. Pue

10 and her friends heard the sound of a bullet being chambered in a gun!

11 which sound at

Ms. Pue and Mr. Oden were familiar with1• Plaintiff

12 di

2 a. loaded weapon, a semi'~automatic .40 cal

Glock wi th no

21

catch! at Ms. Pue and her

the

lot.

t the

iff was

loret

22

r oom which t;

ff t.hen

26

3In July 2000, St, Defendant Hotel,

, Ms. Pue and Mr,

of

marksman

1

e Oden

23

24

. Pu e testified

fact is in di 1S

f:E po 1 to

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT _. 4

next

t the

e I manager

6

16

7 the events that

St. Mart

iff at the hotel

8 night 0 St. Martin then came into work and wanted to speak t.o Bailey

9 about the night:' s events also. Mr. Oden and Ms. Pu.e then came to

10 hotel to talk to Bailey. Bailey began to suspect that plaintiff was the

11 man who displayed or pointed a gun at Ms. Pue and her

ends, Bailey's

were corif irmed when he checked the

tration card and noted

13

Ie e to ff was the same
Bai to call the to let them
ff who may sk to on 1

1.7

no

19

the

chock out,

1

21

to hotel

Around 5:00 p.m.

22 off

were di

to the Hotel to Lnves t

a

3

24 25

for

• I page 2 2 . f f I

a L check out as a " " or

pol to arrest him that afternoon. This

purposes of the summary judgment motions be

Court,

26

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ :5

6 the door and cated he
7 matter to with if. open
8 door to out a tel and the off walked into room. 13

that

intif s

outs

of

s room for two

9 Myers asked plaintiff if he was involved in a situation that had taken

10 place in the parking lot by Pete's. Initially he denied being at Petels

11 and stated he was at a different bar. Soonl though, plaintiff admitted

12 that he was involved in the weapon incident.

r Ms. Pue

'co

him.

Lee

out of the room and was

it purpos

21

P'l.ai.ntLf

2 stat

where he was for

s hor t, time. Plaintiff

itation or'

23

24

the contents of his never merrt i.ons this in

s ,what in the

for: purposes 0 s summary

25

iff states that the officers on the floor. Plaintiff, however I tion when asked to hotel room. This judgment motion.

26

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS I MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 6

o

f

t

none 0

an African-American or that

'7 defendants based on

raceo

8

III. DISCUSSION

10 Plaintiff's argues that the Court should grant his leave to amend

11 based on the absence of Officer Matt Meyers6 from this case, whose

1

12 conduct plaintiff al

s was the primary impetus for

13 case. The Court f

ff's

for the

14 and

t.ua I.

that follow.

1

the Federal

of

1 Procedu:c€:~,

708

:L8 1\.

in

19

Cl

21

from

code, (Ct.

22

23

24

25

Plainti

Rec. 73, pp.

26

ORDER G~NTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ '7

II

I

oppos

of allowance of the amendment,

1

of

t.oward

wi.t.h cons

motive on the

o

movant; ,

failure to cure

amendments

allowed, undue

to the

7

8

amendment, etc.'" Schlacte:'C-Jol1es v ,

Tel. of csi : 936 F.2d 43::1

9

(quoting Foman v , Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). "A motion for leave

10

to amend is not a vehicle to circumvent summary judgrnent." Ld .

11

Here, Plaintiff's motion to amend was made on or after Defendants'

12

summary judgments wex'e fi

and one year and one month after the

13

Lnt; was filed. rEhe

t

of Lm.i.La r mot

made

moti

itr.i zona Boa

of

f 6 61 E'. 2 d. '7 9 6 r '7 98 (9 t.h

.1981)

2

the denial of

motion for

to

sol

because the

court

rais

new issue at the "

hour"

24

was

udicial to the

25

26

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 8

de.ad.Li.rie

on an o r de r (Ct" 72)

8 schedule.

Discovery was undertaken

on the claims

9 made by plaintiff in his original compl

Moreover, plaintiff's

10 motion comes ten months

ter any amendment to pleadings were to have

11
12
13
14 B®
1::5
6 made and well after the close of discovery"

The prejudicial

18

Ho.L,

Court's conclusion

present In this case support

iff's motion for leave to amend the complaint

1

viI

7 1J.

tIL

9

IVIartin

20 conducr.ed

21 Lnf

f the other defendant

A

for

42

22 u. "C. 198 (3)

proo

f the

24

23

25

purposes ,

, any person or class of

persons t of the laws, or of

and immunities under laws; (3) an

ac t in furtherance of this conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or

26

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ._ 9

97

42 u, .C,2;1 8 J.

of

1

ci

7

iff also a I

a conspiracy to violate

sunder

8

42 U.S.C. §1983, Plaintiff argues that private

act under color

9

of state law if they willfully

in joint action with state

10

off s to deprive others of constitutionally rights. Plaintiff cites

11 12

United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge Corp. I 865 F.2d 1539, 1540

(91:11

Ho

I St. Mart

11fu1

i

. 1989). There

no

before the Court that

13

14

th Of

:LEfl

La im undez 42 U.

15

aw.

16

o:f

17

To

18

19

23

20

21

22

24

v , Nards

Trw., 57 Wn.

251, 255 ~36,

} 115

25

Wn,2d 1008 (1990). 'rhe evidence shows that )Y[s. Pue and Nr .

were the

26

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDAN'I'S' MOTIONS FOR SUMMAR.Y JUDGMENT ~ 10

7 wi.t.h i,n

proper scope of the process

(2) an act

the use of 1

Law , 'rhe

lements

6 (1)

stence

em ul

pu rpo s e to

an

t; no c

8 process that is not proper

the

of

9 Sea-Pee Co. v . United Food eSC Wine Cosuui/ L Workers Loce I. Union 44, 103

10 Wn. 2d 800, 806 (1985). plaintiff al

that Bailey directed Ms. Pue and

11 Mr. Oden to make their criminal complaint. However, the facts do not

12 support this all

ion. The c

for malicious

ecution

13 of prcx:ess

smissed.

14 3. Tort. of rals.

16

17

o

8 I

(198 ) >

18

19

1

ss

22

23

24

A

cannot;

c

1

1

25 under a

o f

or.

.Monell v , New

. of

26

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY lJUDGMENT >, 11

I

1).

(3 (

t.om ~ As such I

1

t the

6 should. be

on aummary j

7 2.

8

Plaintiff al

a civil

under 42 U.S.C. §1985.

9 Speci cally, plaintiff alleges that the Yakima police officers conspired

10 with defendants Hotel, st. Martin and Bailey to violate

civil rights

11 under §1985. Plainti

has not demonstrated the four elements

12 conspiracy under §1985(3) set forth in

978 F~2d at 1536. '1'he only

13 1 that can be shown between the defendant and the other
14 de Eendant; L that Off Lee and to
1 def endant; to t the

t

unde.r s 19 8

1

,40 u , . 88, 02 1971).

23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 12

a

7 off

al acted under color of state

(2) in so

off

§1 83

dual

endan t ,

iff must show that: (1) each

8 deprived the plaintiff of

fic rights secured by the constitution;

9 and (3)

of

I's acts were the proximate cause of the injury

10 stated. Borunda v , Ri.ciunond, 885 Fo2d 1384, 1391 (9th Cir.1988). Where

11 there are multiple defendants, the plaintiff must connect each

12 de

's conduct to the alleged via

on of civil rights. Ca l.dwe l.L

13 v .

oE E.lmwood, 959 F.2d 670, 354 (7th Ciro1992).

1 Under

if However,

14

Defendant Lee was

the"

e 0 ficer for

15 L",e not.
16 summary j
'7
18
1 ~J
0 The 22

poli

offi

i

23 ques

First, "[t]

most favorabl

to t.he

24 a s s ez t;

the

ury, do the facts all

show the officer's conduct

25

alated constitutional

?"

er' v . Katz, 533 tLS. 194,201, 121

26

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ,JUDGMENT 13

6

courts to focus on the under

cons tLt.ut

11

In answering the second question

the Saucier quali

immunity

7 first,

if

Lmmun i.t.y

to assist courts

8 in dispos

of insubstantial suits at an

and encourage

9 courts to set forth principles which will become the basis for holding

10 that a right is clearly established.

seuc i er , 533 U.S. at 200-01,

12 test, "a court is not restricted to

1

plaintiff's

13

v.

of

de, 205 F.

1142, 1148 (S.D. of

it

1

officer,

the constitut

whethel:

"

21 v.

Co uzi ,270

10 07 ( 9 th C i . 2 0 02) .

22

23

26

ques no cons

.i sh ed , is

ed Lmmun.i ty. "

icitly say that a ive

of ified Lmmun i

would have

to the first " [i] f

24

25

necessity for further concerning

sr, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S. Ct. at 2156.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 14

1

1

wi.t.hou t;

under t.he

of RCW 10

ess arrests for gross

ademeanor s

tted

7 presence of officers if

involve

threat or harm to persons,

8

Al t.houqh the Court be Li.eve.s the answer to

er question

9 is "no," i,e, that the facts alleged do not show the officer's conduct

10 violated a constitutional right, the Court will t ake its analysis through

11 to the

Saucier question, The court finds that the constitutional

12 right. allegedly violated was clearly established" The

question

13 for

s cus s i on then is whether the o f f

couId have

but

his

did not

late t.hat;

che

1

the

thus,

Lf

£t

22 off

Lee argues

iff'

actions

23 indicated consent.

, Lee argues that he had sufficient

24 circumstances to j

~coom .

Bas

on

eye

25 witness accounts of Ms, PUEl and Mr, Oden, the off

had

that

26

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDAN1'S' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 15

ell allows warrant

'rho Court

ECvv 0, 1,100,

6 t.hat; the off

what the eye

tness

'7 Le" that

.i f f was

in a threat of ha rm to persons

th the

8 use of a handqun , The Court finds that the officers

9 from known circumstances that plaintiff was armed and possibly dangerous"

10 Therefore, the Court finds that the officers could have reasonably

11 believed their conduct did not violate any constitutional right when they

12 arres

plaintiff in his hotel room and searched his gym

14 j

st 1

s were mistaken in

13

:Eor the

Even if the of f

t.hem under

15 circums

As

mat;

of law,

16

th

17

8 :IT

19

1,

1:10 on to

Court!

1.

to Amend the

00

o

22

2, De

West Coast

Center Hotel,

, Mart

23 ,John Bai

Motion

LLed

10 s :2 00 , ct *

4 Rt1i!lc 42, is

25

26

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 16

1

I 200 "

6

7

8

UNITED

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

o

1

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ,JUDGMENT ~ 17

JUDGE