Strong v. State of Washington et al, No. 2:2020cv00461 - Document 9 (E.D. Wash. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT. Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 4 ) is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 8 ) is DENIED as moot. This case is hereby REMANDED to Washington State Superior Court for Spokane County for all further proceedings. The file is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

Download PDF

Strong v. State of Washington et al Doc. 9 Case 2:20-cv-00461-TOR ECF No. 9 filed 02/11/21 PageID.95 Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 MARK STRONG, NO. 2:20-CV-0461-TOR Plaintiff, 8 9 v. 13 STATE OF WASHINGTON, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AIRWAY HEIGHTS CORRECTIONS CENTER, and SUPERINTENDENT JAMES R. KEY, 14 Defendants. 10 11 12 15 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT BEFORE THE COURT are Defendants’ Motions for Judgment on the 16 Pleadings (ECF Nos. 4, 8). These matters were submitted for consideration 17 without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein, the 18 completed briefing and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, 19 Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED and 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00461-TOR ECF No. 9 filed 02/11/21 PageID.96 Page 2 of 9 1 Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 8) is DENIED as 2 moot. BACKGROUND 3 4 This case concerns injuries Plaintiff sustained after he fell while incarcerated 5 at Airway Heights Correction Center. ECF No. 6-1 at 1. On or about December 4, 6 2018, Plaintiff fell breaking his wrist and injuring his hip after stepping on a 7 wooden ramp at an entrance to a building at Airway Heights Correction Center. 8 ECF No. 6-1 at 2, ¶¶ 2.1-2.3; at 3, ¶ 2.9. The ramp was located under the roof of 9 the building, which allowed water and ice to accumulate on the ramp, creating 10 slippery conditions. ECF No. 6-1 at 2 ¶ 2.2; at 3 ¶ 2.7. Although the ramp’s 11 surface was once affixed with sandpaper tape, the tape had been removed and the 12 ramp did not have any traction tape or skid resistant material at the time Plaintiff 13 fell. ECF No. 6-1 at 3 ¶¶ 2.5-2.6. There were no warning signs to alert people to 14 the dangerous conditions. ECF No. 6-1 at 3 ¶ 2.8. Plaintiff continues to 15 experience pain in his elbow, shoulder, lower back, left hip, and neck. ECF No. 6- 16 1 at 3 ¶ 2.10. 17 Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Spokane County Superior Court on November 18 16, 2020 alleging violations of state and federal law. ECF No. 1-1. Defendants 19 removed the case to this Court on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims under 42 20 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell liability present federal questions. ECF No. 1 at 1. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT ~ 2 Case 2:20-cv-00461-TOR ECF No. 9 filed 02/11/21 PageID.97 Page 3 of 9 1 Defendants now move for judgment on the pleadings regarding Plaintiff’s claims 2 under § 1983, Monell, and Article 1, Section 3 of the Washington State 3 Constitution. ECF Nos. 4, 8. Plaintiff opposes the motions, but requests remand to 4 State court should the Court grant Defendants’ motions. ECF No. 6 at 6. DISCUSSION 5 6 7 I. Legal Standard “After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party 8 may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). In reviewing a 9 12(c) motion, the court “must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true 10 and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Fleming 11 v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). “A judgment on the pleadings is 12 properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving party’s 13 pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 14 Marshall Naify Revocable Trust v. United States, 672 F.3d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 15 2012) (quoting Fajardo v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999)). 16 “Analysis under Rule 12(c) is substantially identical to analysis under Rule 17 12(b)(6) because, under both rules, a court must determine whether the facts 18 alleged in the complaint, taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to a legal remedy.” 19 Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation 20 marks and citation omitted). ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT ~ 3 Case 2:20-cv-00461-TOR ECF No. 9 filed 02/11/21 PageID.98 Page 4 of 9 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that a defendant may 2 move to dismiss the complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 3 granted.” Fed. R. of Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive dismissal, a plaintiff must allege 4 “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 5 plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 6 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This requires the plaintiff to 7 provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 8 elements.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. When deciding, the court may consider the 9 plaintiff’s allegations and any “materials incorporated into the complaint by 10 reference[.]” Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 11 1061 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 12 308, 322 (2007)). A plaintiff’s “allegations of material fact are taken as true and 13 construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[,]” but “conclusory allegations 14 of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for 15 failure to state a claim.” In re Stac Elecs. Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 16 1996) (citation and brackets omitted). 17 A. 18 Plaintiff alleges federal causes of actions arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 19 Plaintiff’s Federal Law Claims Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. For City of New York, 436, U.S. 658 (1978). ECF 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT ~ 4 Case 2:20-cv-00461-TOR ECF No. 9 filed 02/11/21 PageID.99 Page 5 of 9 1 No. 6-1 at 4, at 9. Defendants argue they are not “persons” under § 1983 or 2 Monell, and thus are entitled to judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 4 at 2. 3 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish (1) the defendant is 4 a person acting under the color of state law, and (2) the defendant’s conduct must 5 have deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 6 Constitution or laws of the United States. Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 7 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). It is well settled that States and State agencies are not 8 susceptible to suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State 9 Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (holding neither a State nor its officials acting in 10 their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983); Maldonado v. Harris, 370, 11 F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir. 2004) (state agency not amenable to suit under §1983). 12 Here, Defendants State of Washington, Washington State Department of 13 Corrections, Airway Heights Corrections Center, and Superintendent Key acting in 14 his official capacity are State actors and are therefore not “persons” susceptible to 15 suit under § 1983. See RCW 72.09. 16 Plaintiff’s claim for Monell liability also fails. The holding in Monell 17 applies only to “local government units which are not considered part of the State 18 for Eleventh Amendment purposes.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 690 n.54. Again, 19 Defendants are State actors, not “local government units.” They cannot be held 20 liable under Monell. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT ~ 5 Case 2:20-cv-00461-TOR 1 ECF No. 9 filed 02/11/21 PageID.100 Page 6 of 9 Plaintiff argues Defendants are subject to § 1983 and Monell liability 2 because the Washington Legislature waived sovereign immunity under RCW 3 4.96.010 and 4.92.090. ECF No. 6 at 3, at 5. Plaintiff’s argument is misguided. 4 As an initial matter, Defendants are not presently asserting the defense of 5 sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment; rather, they argue they are 6 not “persons” for the purposes of § 1983 claims. ECF No. 7 at 3. As Defendants 7 properly note, the defense of Eleventh Amendment immunity is separate and 8 distinct from the issue of whether Defendants are “persons” within the definition of 9 § 1983. See, e.g., Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 535 U.S. 613 10 (2002); Mueller v. Dep't of Pub. Safety, No. CV 17-00571 HG-WRP, 2020 WL 11 1866428 (D. Haw. Apr. 14, 2020). 12 Further, Plaintiff misconstrues the application of RCW 4.96.010, which 13 applies only to “local governmental entities.” The term “local governmental 14 entities” is narrowly defined as “a county, city, town, special district, municipal 15 corporation, . . . quasi-municipal corporation, . . . or public hospital.” RCW 16 4.96.010(2). Defendants are not local governmental entities; they are State actors. 17 Thus, RCW 4.96.010 does not apply to Defendants or the case at bar. 18 RCW 4.92.090 is also inapplicable. The statute states, “[t]he state of 19 Washington, whether acting in its governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be 20 liable for damages arising out of its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT ~ 6 Case 2:20-cv-00461-TOR ECF No. 9 filed 02/11/21 PageID.101 Page 7 of 9 1 a private person or corporation.” RCW 4.92.090. While this statute affects 2 Washington State’s immunity in its own courts, the Ninth Circuit and Washington 3 courts have found it does not have any bearing on State immunity in federal courts. 4 See McConnell v. Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116, 117 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted); 5 Rains v. State, 100 Wash. 2d 660, 667-68 (1983)). Thus, RCW 4.92.090 is equally 6 irrelevant in the present case. 7 Finally, Plaintiff’s references to Yim v. City of Seattle, 194 Wash. 2d 682, 8 686, 451 P.3d 694, 696 (2019), as amended (Jan. 9, 2020) and LaPlante v. State, 9 85 Wash. 2d 154 (1975) are irrelevant to a § 1983 analysis. Both cases involved 10 11 only Washington state law issues. The Court finds Defendants are not “persons” against whom a § 1983 claim 12 may be brought nor are they “local government units” against whom a claim for 13 Monell liability may be brought. Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor 14 on Plaintiff’s federal law claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell. 15 B. Plaintiff’s State Law Causes of Action 16 Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action allege common law negligence and 17 violations of Article 1, Section 3 of the Washington State Constitution. ECF No. 18 6-1 at 4-6. Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings regarding the 19 Washington Constitutional claims. ECF No. 8. The Court must first decide 20 whether to exercise supplement jurisdiction over these claims. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT ~ 7 Case 2:20-cv-00461-TOR 1 ECF No. 9 filed 02/11/21 PageID.102 Page 8 of 9 A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent claims 2 “that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they 3 form part of the same case or controversy[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, if a 4 district court has dismissed all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it 5 may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim. 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1367(c)(3). “[A] federal court should consider and weigh . . . the values of 7 judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in order to decide whether to 8 exercise jurisdiction over a case brought in that court involving pendent state-law 9 claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988), superseded 10 by statute on other grounds as stated in Stanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 11 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 12 U.S. 715 (1966)). “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are 13 eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent 14 jurisdiction doctrine . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over 15 the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 350 n.7. 16 Here, the values of judicial economy, comity, fairness, and convenience 17 weigh in favor of allowing the State court to resolve the remaining claims. This 18 case has not yet proceeded to discovery let alone trial and therefore falls within the 19 “usual case” in which a federal court should decline to exercise supplemental 20 jurisdiction over remaining state law claims. Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 350 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT ~ 8 Case 2:20-cv-00461-TOR ECF No. 9 filed 02/11/21 PageID.103 Page 9 of 9 1 n.7. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 2 remaining state law causes of action and finds remand appropriate. 3 Consequently, the Court need not address Defendants’ Motion for Judgment 4 on the Pleadings (ECF No. 8) as the matter is now moot. 5 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 6 1. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 4) is 7 GRANTED. Plaintiff’s federal causes of action arising under 42 U.S.C. 8 § 1983 and Monell liability against all Defendants are DISMISSED with 9 prejudice. 10 11 12 13 14 2. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 8) is DENIED as moot. 3. This case is hereby REMANDED to Washington State Superior Court for Spokane County for all further proceedings. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter Judgment 15 in favor of all Defendants on Plaintiff’s causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 16 and Monell, furnish copies to counsel, mail a certified copy to the Clerk of the 17 Spokane County Superior Court, and CLOSE the file. 18 DATED February 11, 2021. 19 20 THOMAS O. RICE United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT ~ 9

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.