JESSE MCREYNOLDS V. STATE OF WASHINGTON, ET AL, No. 21-35267 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 8 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESSE MCREYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-35267 D.C. No. 3:19-cv-05708-RJB-DWC v. STATE OF WASHINGTON; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. JESSE MCREYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 21-35302 D.C. No. 3:19-cv-05708-RJB-DWC v. STATE OF WASHINGTON; et al., Defendants-Appellants, and KATHLEEN LONGWELL; et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted November 4, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff Jesse McReynolds appeals from the district court’s summary judgment.1 As the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision. I Count One asserts a claim for false imprisonment. The district court properly granted Defendants summary judgment on Count One. Washington state law requires a claim for false imprisonment to be filed within two years of accrual. Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.100. “[A] cause of action accrues when the Plaintiff knew or should have known the essential elements of the cause of action.” Allen v. State, 826 P.2d 200, 203 (Wash. 1992). McReynolds’ claim began to accrue in or around the time of his probable cause hearing in November 2008. At that time, McReynolds was subject to total confinement and could not be released prior to a trial on his petition for release. See ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 McReynolds asserts in his statement of issues that he seeks review of the district court’s ruling that his “claim is time barred, and that a claim should [have] been filed when the [damage] began because the statute of limitations continues to run while damage occurs.” 2 Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.040; Gausvik v. Perez, 392 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding false imprisonment claim under Washington state law accrued when arrestee was arrested and knew basis for his claims). Therefore, McReynolds’ claim was time barred in or around November 2010—nearly a decade before he filed this action. II Counts Two and Three assert claims for negligence and violation of Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.070(5). The district court properly granted Defendants summary judgment on Counts Two and Three to the extent that McReynolds’ claims are based on events occurring more than three years before the filing of his complaint. See Wash. Rev. Code § 4.15.080(2) (providing a three-year limitation for any “injury to the person or rights of another” not enumerated). III Count Four claims violation of Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.060. The district court properly granted Defendants summary judgment on Count Four to the extent that McReynolds’ claim is based on events occurring more than three years before the filing of his complaint. See Wash. Rev. Code § 4.15.080(2) (providing a threeyear limitation for any “injury to the person or rights of another” not enumerated). * * * The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3
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.
