Rountry v. State of Washington et al, No. 3:2011cv05575 - Document 25 (W.D. Wash. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER granting 15 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; all of Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rountry v. State of Washington et al Doc. 25 1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 DAVID D. ROUNTRY, CASE NO. C11-5575RBL 9 Plaintiff, 10 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. 11 12 13 [DKT. #15] STATE OF WASHINGTON, MARK B. HOLTHAUS and JANE DOE HOLTHAUS and the marital community thereof, 14 Defendant. 15 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 16 # 15). Plaintiff David Rountry was stopped by Washington State Patrol Trooper Mark Holthaus 17 for failure to yield. He was ultimately arrested for failure to follow a lawful order and resisting 18 arrest. Rountry sued Holthaus and the State, alleging Constitutional and state law tort claims. 19 Defendants seek summary judgment, arguing that Holthaus did not violate Rountry’s 20 constitutional rights, and that even if he did, he is entitled to qualified immunity. The State also 21 claims that it is not is not subject to suit under §1983, and both Defendants argue that Rountry’s 22 state law claims fail as a matter of law. For the reasons below, Defendants’ Motion is 23 GRANTED. 24 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. FACTS 2 With limited exceptions, the facts are undisputed. On May 29, 2009, Washington State 3 Patrol Trooper Mark Holthaus was travelling eastbound on Mounts Road when Rountry drove 4 his truck across Holthaus’ path. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (Dkt. # 15). Video from Holthaus’ 5 vehicle shows Rountry failed to stop at the intersection, and failed to yield the trooper’s right-of6 way. Decl. of Holthaus, Ex. 1, Video at :55 (Dkt. #16); Decl. of Spurling ¶ 10 (Dkt. #18). 7 Rountry disputes that he failed to yield. Pl.’s Resp. at 1:23-24. (Dkt. # 19). 8 Holthaus engaged his vehicle’s lights and Rountry pulled to the side of the I-5 onramp. 9 Decl. of Holthaus, Ex. 1 at 1:05. Rountry was agitated as Holthaus approached Rountry’s truck 10 and informed him that the conversation was being recorded by video and audio. Decl. of 11 Holthaus ¶¶ 6, 7 (Dkt. # 17). Holthaus cited Rountry for failing to yield under RCW 46.61.180. 12 Decl. of Holthaus, Ex. 2. Holthaus told Rountry that his name and badge number were on the 13 citation if he wanted to make a complaint or challenge the citation. Id. ¶ 9. 14 As Holthaus walked away, Rountry stepped out of his vehicle and walked toward him. 15 Decl. of Holthaus, Ex. 1, at 8:05. Holthaus had his back to Rountry. Id. Holthaus turned and 16 firmly instructed Rountry to return to his vehicle, which Rountry responded, “You do not need to 17 point your finger at me.” Id. at 8:07. Holthaus repeated his command at least six more times. 18 Decl. of Miller, Ex. A, Dep of Rountry at 20:15-25; 21:1-9. Rountry heard the command but 19 remained outside of his vehicle. Id. After several instructions to return to the truck, Holthaus 20 placed one hand on Rountry’s shoulder as to escort him to the vehicle in compliance with 21 Washington State Patrol procedures. Decl. of Holthaus ¶ 13; Decl. of Spurling ¶13. 22 After a sixth warning to return to the vehicle, Holthaus informed Rountry that he would 23 be placed under arrest if he did not return to the truck. Decl. of Holthaus ¶ 13. Rountry did not 24 comply and began to twist his body away. Decl. of Holthaus ¶ 14. Although Rountry did not ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2 1 run away or become violent, he continued to twist away from Holthaus, raising his hand over his 2 head as Holthaus pinned Rountry against the truck. Id. Holthaus placed Rountry in handcuffs, 3 and guided him to the back seat of Holthaus’ vehicle. Decl. of Holthaus, Ex. 1 at 8:25. Rountry 4 continued to resist the trooper’s instructions to sit. Id. Holthaus read Rountry his Miranda rights 5 and waited, with Rountry in the rear of the vehicle, for Rountry’s truck to be impounded. Decl. 6 of Holthaus ¶ 14. 7 As Holthaus drove Rountry to Pierce County Jail, Rountry told him, “I do want you to 8 know that I lost the circulation in my right hand about ten minutes ago.” Decl. Holthaus (Ex. 3 at 9 49:30). This was nearly an hour after the arrest. Id. However, Rountry told Holthaus to continue 10 and that he could wait to arrive at jail to remove the handcuffs. Id. Rountry did not notice any 11 markings or blood on his wrists. Decl. of Miller, Ex. A at 27-28. Rountry was charged with 12 failing to obey a lawful order and resisting arrest, both misdemeanor offenses. Decl. of Holthaus 13 ¶ 17. 14 Prior to this traffic stop, Rountry had been pulled over on multiple occasions. Decl. of 15 Miller, Ex. A at 4. Rountry knew there was a process to properly challenge a citation, and 16 admits he had never gotten out of his vehicle during previous traffic stops because “it would be 17 unsafe to…get out of a vehicle if there was traffic or…a risk of either causing an accident or 18 being hit by some oncoming vehicle.” Id. at 4-7. 19 Rountry claims his wrists and shoulders were injured by the arrest. Id. ¶ 3.12-15. He 20 claims Holthaus violated his “(1) right to be free from unreasonable and excessive force under 21 the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, (2) right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment 22 under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and (3) right to due process of law under 23 the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Complaint ¶ ¶ 5.1-5.6. He also asserts state law battery, 24 false arrest, and false imprisonment claims. Id. ¶ ¶ 5.7-5.17. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3 1 Defendants argue that all of Rountry’s claims fail as a matter of law. They stress that 2 Holthaus is entitled to qualified immunity because he committed no constitutional violation, and 3 even if he had, there was no clearly established law to place him on notice that actions violated 4 any rights. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 8-14. They also argue that Rountry’s cruel and unusual 5 punishment, false arrest, battery, and false imprisonment fail as a matter of law. Id. at 15-17. 6 Rountry’s Response includes a request for further discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) 7 claiming that he needs to depose Holthaus to obtain additional facts. Pl.’s Resp. at 6:1-6. 8 Rountry apparently wants Holthaus to admit that Rountry had minimal prior interaction with law 9 enforcement, and therefore was not a risk to Holthaus. 1 Decl. of Ferrell at 2. Rountry’s 10 Response also disputes that he failed to yield or resisted arrest, and claims that the amount of 11 force applied was excessive. 12 13 II. DISCUSSION Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to 14 the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude summary 15 judgment as a matter of law. Once the moving party has satisfied its burden, it is entitled to 16 summary judgment if the non-moving party fails to present, by affidavits, depositions, answers to 17 interrogatories, or admissions on file, “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for 18 trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). “The mere existence of a scintilla of 19 evidence in support of the non-moving party’s position is not sufficient.” Triton Energy Corp. v. 20 Square D Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). Factual disputes whose resolution would not 21 affect the outcome of the suit are irrelevant to the consideration of a motion for summary 22 23 1 Rountry’s request for additional time to conduct discovery under Rule 56(d) is DENIED. The evidence Rountry seeks to obtain would not change the outcome of Defendants’ 24 Motion for Summary Judgment. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4 1 judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In other words, 2 “summary judgment should be granted where the nonmoving party fails to offer evidence from 3 which a reasonable [fact finder] could return a [decision] in its favor.” Triton Energy, 68 F.3d at 4 1220. 5 A. Holthaus is Entitled to Qualified Immunity 6 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary 7 functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not 8 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would 9 have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The purpose of the doctrine is to 10 “protect officers from the sometimes ‘hazy border’ between excessive and acceptable force.” 11 Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004) (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 206 12 (2001)). A two-part test resolves claims of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs 13 have alleged facts that “make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and if so, whether the 14 “right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Pearson 2 15 v. Callahan, 553 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). Claims should be resolved “at the earliest possible stage 16 in litigation” because qualified immunity protects officers from suit in addition to liability. 17 Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 n.2 (1987). 18 Qualified immunity protects officials “who act in ways they reasonably believe to be 19 lawful.” Garcia v. County of Merced, 639 F.3d 1206, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Anderson, 20 483 U.S. at 631). The reasonableness inquiry is objective, evaluating ‘whether the officers’ 21 actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, 22 without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.’” Huff v. City of Burbank, 632 F.3d 539, 23 2 In Pearson, the Supreme Court reversed its previous mandate from Saucier requiring 24 district courts to decide each question in order. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 5 1 549 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989)). Officials are 2 protected from reasonable legal mistakes. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 205. 3 4 1. Lawful Arrest Rountry asserts that “Holthaus lacked a basis to seize Mr. Rountry by stopping his 5 vehicle for failure to yield....” and thus, his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Pl.’s Resp. 6 at 6:15; 7:4-5. An “officer may detain [a] person for a reasonable period of time necessary 7 to...complete and issue a notice of traffic infraction.” RCW 46.61.021. A notice of traffic 8 infraction may be issued for a failure to yield when committed in the officer’s presence. RCW 9 46.63.030. A person fails to yield “when two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from 10 different highways at approximately the same time,” and the driver to the left does not yield the 11 right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.” RCW 46.61.180. Holthaus had probable cause because 12 he observed Rountry’s failure to yield and immediately initiated the traffic stop. Decl. of 13 Holthaus ¶ 5; Ex. 1 at 0:55. Rountry attempts to create an issue of material fact as to whether he 14 failed to yield. Yet, this is irrelevant. The issue is not whether Rountry yielded, but if Holthaus 15 violated his constitutional rights when he arrested him. 16 Rountry was arrested for failure to obey lawful orders and resisting arrest. It is against 17 the law for any person to “willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction” 18 of a police officer. RCW 46.61.015(1). It is a misdemeanor to fail to comply with lawful orders. 19 RCW 46.61.015(2). Similarly, it is a misdemeanor to intentionally prevent or attempt to prevent 20 an officer from completing a lawful arrest. RCW 9A.76.040. Law enforcement officers may 21 arrest persons who commit misdemeanor offenses. RCW 10.31.100. Rountry contends that 22 Holthaus lacked authority to order him to return to his truck, because the traffic citation had been 23 issued and the stop was over. Therefore the arrest was unlawful. Pl.’s Resp. at 8:1-2. Rountry 24 claims that absent authority, the arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at 7. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 6 1 Holthaus’ authority to order Rountry to the truck did not end because Rountry had 2 already received the citation. Rountry was given at least six verbal warnings—which he admits 3 he heard and ignored—and was informed that failure to comply with such orders would lead to 4 his arrest. Holthaus issued the orders to control the scene and reduce the risk of injury to himself 5 or Rountry posed by their location on the onramp. See City of Spokane v. Hays, 99 Wash. App. 6 653, 658 (2000); Penn v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 (1977). Even viewed in the light most 7 favorable to Rountry, the evidence does not support his claim that the arrest violated his Fourth 8 Amendment rights because Holthaus was within his authority to order Rountry to return to his 9 truck, and failure to obey was a misdemeanor offense. Rountry was lawfully arrested. 10 2. Excessive Force 11 Rountry also claims that Holthaus violated his constitutional rights by exerting excessive 12 force while making the arrest. Pl.’s Resp. at 9-12 (Dkt. # 19). The reasonableness of force is 13 determined by “carefully balancing the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s 14 Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Deorle 15 v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1279 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at 396). Courts 16 assess the “quantum of force used to arrest” by considering “the type and amount of force 17 inflicted.” Id. at 1279–80. A court assesses the governmental interests by considering a range of 18 factors, including “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect posed an immediate 19 threat to the safety of the officers or others, whether he was actively resisting arrest or attempting 20 to evade arrest by flight,” or any other “exigent circumstances.” Id. 21 A court must judge reasonableness “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the 22 scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Courts must 23 make “allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second 24 judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 7 1 of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id. at 397. Although the question is “highly 2 fact-specific,” the inquiry is objective: a court must ask “whether the officers’ actions are 3 ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.” See Scott v. 4 Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 383 (2007); Graham, 490 U.S. at 397). 5 Under Graham, and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Rountry, no trier of 6 fact could find that the force used was excessive. Holthaus’ use of force was constitutional 7 because the governmental interests are upheld and the “quantum of force” was reasonable. 8 Although Rountry had committed a minor offense and did not seem to react violently, he did 9 actively evade arrest by twisting away from the officer, and lifting his arms over his head. 10 Rountry ignored six warnings to return to his truck, continued to walk toward Holthaus, and 11 ignored warnings that he would be arrested if he did not comply. Holthaus applied Washington 12 State Patrol approved techniques to make the arrest. See Decl. of Spurling ¶ 17. Rountry’s claim 13 is insufficient when he admits that he lifted his arm above his head and twisted away from 14 Holthaus. See Decl. of Miller, Ex. A at 23-24. Rountry never voiced a concern of injury, and his 15 resistance only escalated the force used. 16 Moreover, Holthaus used the amount of force reasonably necessary to effectuate the 17 arrest as a matter of law. Rountry admits that he was not compliant, and that some force was 18 necessary during arrest him. He fails to suggest, much less demonstrate, what sufficient lesser 19 amount Holthaus could have applied. See Decl. of Miller, Ex. A at 25. There is no evidence that 20 the force used was any greater than that required, or that any reasonable officer would know that 21 the force applied was excessive. Holthaus attempted to place Rountry’s hands behind his back, 22 but utilized a “wrist lock” technique and used the truck as leverage to overcome Rountry’s 23 resistance. Decl. of Holthaus ¶ 14. Holthaus used only techniques approved by the Washington 24 State Patrol and never used a weapon or other device to restrain Rountry. Decl. of Spurling ¶ 17. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 8 1 Rountry cannot show that the force used was anything but the minimal amount necessary to 2 effectuate the arrest. Had Holthaus used less force, he would not have arrested Rountry. 3 Holthaus did not violate Rountry’s constitutional rights by using excessive force as a matter of 4 law. 5 Even if Holthaus used excessive force, it was not clearly established at the time of the 6 arrest that the amount of force applied violated Rountry’s rights. A clearly established right is 7 sufficiently defined in relation to particular facts such that a reasonable officer would understand 8 the action violates that right. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 – 42 (1987). 9 Objective reasonableness is met if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the 10 legality of the action. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). Even if the force Holthaus 11 applied was excessive, it would not be clear to a reasonable officer that Holthaus’ conduct was 12 unlawful based upon Rountry’s resistance to the verbal commands and arrest. 13 Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Rountry, Holthaus did not violate any 14 constitutional right. Even if he did, it was not clearly established at the time of the arrest. 15 Therefore, Holthaus is entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants’ Motion for Summary 16 Judgment on this claim is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. 17 3. Qualified Immunity from State Law Claims 18 Rountry alleges claims against Holthaus for false arrest, battery, and false imprisonment. 19 Under Washington law, “qualified immunity from liability for false arrest and imprisonment” 20 extends to officers who carry out a statutory duty, according to procedures dictated to him by 21 statute and superiors, and acts reasonably.” Staats v. Brown, 139 Wash.2d 757 (2000) (citing 22 Guffey v. State, 103 Wash.2d 144 (1984). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to 23 Rountry, demonstrates that Holthaus carried out his statutory duty according to the procedures of 24 the Washington State Patrol. Holthaus used approved techniques to effectuate the arrest, and ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 9 1 was in accord with the statutory duty to arrest a person for committing two misdemeanor 2 offenses. Because Holthaus’ actions meet the test set forth in Guffey, Holthaus is entitled to 3 qualified immunity. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Rountry’s claims for battery, 4 false arrest and false imprisonment is GRANTED. 5 B. Rountry’s Remaining Claims for Civil Rights Violations 6 Rountry also alleges that Holthaus violated his rights under the Fifth, Eight, and 7 Fourteenth Amendments to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and violated his due 8 process rights. Pl.’s Compl. ¶5.2 Claims arising under § 1983 arising “in the context of an arrest 9 … is more properly characterized as one invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment…” 10 Graham, 490 U.S. at 394. “[A]ll claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force 11 …in the course of an arrest…should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its 12 ‘reasonableness’ standard, rather under a ‘substantive due process’ approach.” Id. at 395. 13 Rountry’s claims fail because they must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. As 14 discussed above, Holthaus is entitled to qualified immunity. Thus, Rountry’s claims of cruel and 15 unusual punishment and violation of his due process rights fail as a matter of law. Summary 16 judgment is GRANTED and Rountry’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 17 C. Claims Against State of Washington 18 The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars a person from suing a 19 state in federal court without the state's consent. See Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 20 S.Ct. 1114, 1131 (1996); Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Dep't of Transp., 96 21 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996). Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state agencies. 22 Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Holdeman, 465 U.S. 89, 101-102 (1984). Washington has not 23 waived immunity from § 1983 suits in Federal court. McConnell v. Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116, 24 117 (9th Cir. 1981), citing Skokomish Indian Tribe v. France, 269 F.2d 555, 561 (9th Cir. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 10 1 1959). Additionally, states are not persons for subject to suit under § 1983. See Arizonans for 2 Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 69 (1997); Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 49 U.S. 3 58, 71 (1989). Accordingly, Rountry cannot sue the State of Washington for a § 1983 damages 4 claim. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on this claim is GRANTED and Rountry’s 5 claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 6 7 III. CONCLUSION Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 15) is GRANTED and all of 8 Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 12th day of September, 2012. 12 A 13 Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 11
]]>
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.
