A H v. Shane Hellyer et al, No. 4:2020cv05042 - Document 5 (E.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS. Defendants Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Section 1983 claim is dismissed against both Shane Hellyer and the City of Prosser. This case is hereby REMANDED to the Benton County Superior C ourt for all further proceedings concerning the remaining state law claims (former Benton County Superior Court No. 20-2-00338-03). Defendant Shane Hellyer is terminated. The file is CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
A H v. Shane Hellyer et al Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 A.H., NO. 4:20-CV-5042-TOR Plaintiff, 8 9 10 11 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS v. SHANE HELLYER, in his individual capacity, and CITY OF PROSSER, a Municipal Corporation in the State of Washington, 12 Defendants. 13 14 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15 2). This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court 16 has reviewed the record and files herein, and is fully informed. For the reasons 17 discussed below, Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 2) is granted. 18 19 20 BACKGROUND This case concerns Plaintiff’s allegations that she was harassed and sexually assaulted by Defendant Shane Hellyer while he was acting in his capacity as a ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 police officer for Defendant City of Prosser (“the City”). See ECF No. 1-2 at 8-36. 2 Plaintiff raises a Section 1983 claim against both Defendants for the alleged assault 3 and a series of state law tort claims against the City only. ECF No. 1-2 at 24-27. 4 On February 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in Benton County Superior 5 Court. ECF No. 1-2 at 8. On March 3, 2020, Defendants removed this case to 6 federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. On March 7 11, 2020, Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Section 1983 8 claim against both Defendants. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff failed to respond to the 9 motion. 10 DISCUSSION 11 A. Failure to Respond to Motion 12 Plaintiff failed to file any response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 13 Represented parties must file a response to a dispositive motion, such as a motion 14 to dismiss, within 21 days after the filing of the dispositive motion. LCivR 15 7(c)(2)(B). Failure to comply with this rule “may be deemed consent to entry of an 16 order adverse to the party who violates” the rule. LCivR 7(e). The hearing date on 17 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss has passed, and Plaintiff failed to file any response 18 to the motion. Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiff to have consented to entry 19 of an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss. LCivR 7(e). 20 // ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS ~ 2 1 2 3 4 B. Statute of Limitations Even if Plaintiff had not consented to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Defendants’ motion would succeed on the merits. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim on the grounds 5 that it was filed after the statute of limitations ran. ECF No. 2 at 4-6. A motion to 6 dismiss for failure to state a claim “tests the legal sufficiency” of the plaintiff’s 7 claims. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “To survive a 8 motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 9 true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 10 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). “If the running of the statute [of 11 limitations] is apparent on the face of the complaint, the defense may be raised by 12 a motion to dismiss.” Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 13 1980). 14 Section 1983 does not have its own statute of limitations, so “[f]ederal courts 15 in § 1983 actions apply the state statute of limitations from personal-injury claims 16 and borrow the state’s tolling rules.” Soto v. Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 871 (9th 17 Cir. 2018). In Washington, Section 1983 claims are subject to the three-year 18 statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Bagley v. CMC Real Estate 19 Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1991); see RCW 4.16.080(2). Although state 20 law allows the statute of limitations for certain claims to be “tolled” while a ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS ~ 3 1 plaintiff presents a notice of tort claim to a local government defendant, the Ninth 2 Circuit has explicitly held that this tolling provision does not apply to Section 1983 3 claims. Boston v. Kitsap Cty., 852 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 2017); see RCW 4 4.96.020(4). 5 Here, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim concerns an assault that is alleged to 6 have occurred on December 19, 2016. ECF No. 1-2 at 15-16, ¶¶ 44-55. The 7 Complaint also alleges ongoing sexually harassing phone calls through January 19, 8 2017. ECF No. 1-2 at 17, ¶¶ 56-57. Plaintiff filed a notice of tort claim to the City 9 on December 13, 2019. ECF No. 3-1. However, Plaintiff did not file her suit until 10 February 12, 2020. ECF No. 1-2 at 8. Plaintiff’s notice of tort claim did not toll 11 the statute of limitations for her Section 1983 claim. Boston, 852 F.3d at 1186. If 12 Plaintiff’s claim is measured by the date of the alleged assault, the statute of 13 limitations ran on December 19, 2019. Even if Plaintiff’s claim is measured by the 14 date of the last alleged harassing phone call, the statute of limitations ran on 15 January 19, 2020. Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed nearly one month later. Because 16 Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim is untimely, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 17 succeeds on the merits. Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim is dismissed, and because 18 this is the only claim raised against Defendant Hellyer, Hellyer shall be terminated 19 as a defendant in this matter. 20 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS ~ 4 1 C. Remand 2 Upon dismissal of Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim, the Court considers 3 whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction is present. “Federal courts are courts of 4 limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 5 375, 377 (1994). If subject-matter jurisdiction is questionable, the court must raise 6 the issue sua sponte. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) 7 (“[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own 8 initiative even at the highest level.”). After a case has been removed from state 9 court, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 10 11 subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Here, Defendants removed this case to federal court by asserting federal 12 question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim. ECF No. 1 at 2. 13 However, now that the Section 1983 claim has been dismissed, the only claims that 14 remain are state tort claims against the City. ECF No. 1-2 at 25-27, ¶¶ 104-120. 15 Because the basis for federal question jurisdiction has been dismissed, and because 16 the parties are not alleged to be of diverse citizenship, there is no basis for federal 17 subject-matter jurisdiction in this case. Consequently, this matter shall be 18 remanded to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 19 20 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS ~ 5 1 2 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 3 Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim is dismissed against both Shane Hellyer 4 and the City of Prosser. 5 2. This case is hereby REMANDED to the Benton County Superior Court 6 for all further proceedings concerning the remaining state law claims 7 (former Benton County Superior Court No. 20-2-00338-03). 8 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, furnish copies to 9 counsel, terminate Shane Hellyer as a Defendant, mail a certified copy of this 10 Order to the Clerk of the Benton County Superior Court, and CLOSE the file. 11 DATED May 1, 2020. 12 13 THOMAS O. RICE Chief United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS ~ 6
]]>
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.
