Moreno-Toro v. City of Lake Stevens et al, No. 2:2013cv01723 - Document 36 (W.D. Wash. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER Granting Defendant, City of Lake Stevens' 30 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge James L. Robart.(LMK)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 JANET MORENO-TORO, Plaintiff, 11 CITY OF LAKE STEVENS, et al., Defendants. 14 15 16 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. 12 13 CASE NO. C13-1723JLR I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the court on Defendant City of Lake Stevens’ (“Lake 17 Stevens”) motion for summary judgment. (See Mot. (Dkt. # 30).) Plaintiff Janet 18 Moreno-Toro alleges that Lake Stevens police officers executed an unreasonable search 19 and seizure of her residence while they were investigating a tip regarding a stolen 20 generator. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the balance of the record, 21 and the relevant law, and no party having requested oral argument, the court GRANTS 22 Lake Stevens’ motion for summary judgment. ORDER- 1 1 II. 2 BACKGROUND The undisputed facts regarding the Lake Stevens police officers’ interaction with 3 Ms. Moreno-Toro are set forth in the court’s October 14, 2014 order granting in part 4 Defendants’ first motion for summary judgment. (See 10/14/14 Order (Dkt. # 29) at 25 10.) The court incorporates those facts herein. In its October 14, 2014 order, the court 6 found that the individual police officer defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for 7 the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims asserted against them. (See id.) As to the state law claims, 8 the court granted summary judgment in favor of both the individual police officer 9 defendants and Lake Stevens. (See id.) Accordingly, at this time, the only claim 10 remaining in the case is a Section 1983 claim against Lake Stevens under Monell v. 11 Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Lake 12 Stevens now moves for summary judgment on the Monell claim. (See Mot.) Ms. 13 Moreno-Toro did not file an opposition to Lake Stevens’ motion. (See generally Dkt.) 14 III. ANALYSIS 15 A. Summary Judgment Standard 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 permits a court to grant summary judgment 17 where the moving party demonstrates (1) the absence of a genuine issue of material fact 18 and (2) entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 19 317, 322 (1986); see also Galen v. Cnty. of L.A., 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007). The 20 moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of 21 material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. 22 ORDER- 2 1 If the moving party does not bear the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial, it can 2 show the absence of an issue of material fact in two ways: (1) by producing evidence 3 negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case, or (2) by showing that the 4 nonmoving party lacks evidence of an essential element of its claim or defense. Nissan 5 Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000). The 6 burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to identify specific facts from which a 7 factfinder could reasonably find in the nonmoving party’s favor. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 8 324; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). In determining whether 9 the factfinder could reasonably find in the nonmoving party’s favor, “the court must draw 10 all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility 11 determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 12 U.S. 133, 150 (2000). If the nonmoving party fails to produce enough evidence to create 13 a genuine issue of material fact, summary judgment for the moving party is proper. 14 Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at 1106. 15 Ordinarily, under this district’s local rules “[i]f a party fails to file papers in 16 opposition to a motion, such failure may be considered by the court as an admission that 17 the motion has merit.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(2). In the summary judgment 18 context, however, “a nonmoving party’s failure to comply with local rules does not 19 excuse the moving party’s affirmative duty under Rule 56 to demonstrate its entitlement 20 to judgment as a matter of law.” Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1182-83 (9th Cir. 21 2003) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56). 22 ORDER- 3 1 B. Monell Claims 2 It is well-established that “a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a 3 respondeat superior theory.” Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 4 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Instead, Lake Stevens may be held liable for its police officers’ 5 allegedly unconstitutional conduct only if Ms. Moreno-Toro demonstrates an injury 6 resulting from the “execution of a government’s policy or custom.” Dietrich v. John 7 Ascuaga’s Nugget, 548 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2008). Specifically, to establish a 8 Section 1983 claim against Lake Stevens, Ms. Moreno-Toro must prove: (1) that she 9 possessed a constitutional right of which she was deprived; (2) that Lake Stevens had a 10 custom or policy; (3) that Lake Stevens’ custom or policy amounts to deliberate 11 indifference to her constitutional rights; and (4) that the custom or policy was the 12 moving force behind the violation of her constitutional rights. See id. (internal citations 13 omitted); accord Gibson v. Cnty. of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1185-86, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 14 2002) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). Ms. Moreno-Toro alleges two theories of 15 Monell liability, neither of which can survive summary judgment. 16 1. Affirmative Custom or Policy 17 First, Ms. Moreno-Toro alleges that Lake Stevens maintains an affirmative policy 18 to “search now, obtain warrant later.” (Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 16) ¶ 9.7.) Ms. Moreno19 Toro, however, has provided no evidence showing that any such policy actually exists. 20 The only incident Ms. Moreno-Toro has discussed is her own, and this incident alone 21 does not constitute a Lake Stevens policy. See City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 22 808, 823-24 (1985). “[P]roof of random acts or isolated events” does not rise to the ORDER- 4 1 level of a custom or policy; rather, only a “permanent and well-settled” practice leads to 2 municipal liability. Thomson v. City of L.A., 885 F.2d 1439, 1443-44 (9th Cir. 1989). 3 Because Ms. Moreno-Toro is unable to identify a relevant custom or policy, it goes 4 without saying that she is also unable to show that any such policy was a moving force 5 behind the alleged violation of her constitutional rights. As such, Ms. Moreno-Toro fails 6 to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding at least two elements of her Monell 7 claim under this theory. Therefore, summary judgment for Lake Stevens is proper. See 8 Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at 1106. 9 10 2. Failure to Train Second, Ms. Moreno-Toro alleges that Lake Stevens failed to train its police 11 officers in the proper procedure for handling residential searches. (Am. Compl. ¶ 9.4.) 12 “In limited circumstances, a local government’s decision not to train certain employees 13 about their legal duty to avoid violating citizens’ rights may rise to the level of an 14 official government policy for purposes of § 1983.” Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 15 1350, 1359 (2011). However, “[a] municipality’s culpability for a deprivation of rights 16 is at its most tenuous where a claim turns on a failure to train.” Id. 17 “‘Deliberate indifference’ is a stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a 18 municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action.” Id. at 1360 19 (quoting Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty., Okla. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 410 20 (1997)). In the context of a “failure to train” claim, a pattern of similar constitutional 21 violations by untrained employees is “ordinarily necessary” to demonstrate the 22 municipality’s deliberate indifference. Id. After all, “[w]ithout notice that a course of ORDER- 5 1 training is deficient in a particular respect, decisionmakers can hardly be said to have 2 deliberately chosen a training program that will cause violations of constitutional rights.” 3 Id. Accordingly, a plaintiff proceeding under a “failure to train” theory must show that a 4 municipality “disregarded the known or obvious consequence that a particular omission 5 in their training program would cause [municipal] employees to violate citizens’ 6 constitutional rights.” Flores v. Cnty. of L.A., 758 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014) 7 (quoting Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1359-60). 8 Ms. Moreno-Toro fails to put forth any evidence whatsoever regarding Lake 9 Stevens’ approach to training police officers, let alone evidence suggesting that this 10 training is inadequate with respect to residential searches or otherwise. (See generally 11 Dkt.) “Bare-bones allegations” regarding officers’ training, however, are insufficient to 12 establish municipal liability. Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 756 F.3d 1154, 13 1168 (9th Cir. 2014). Furthermore, Ms. Moreno-Toro identifies no pattern of similar 14 constitutional violations by Lake Stevens police officers; rather, the only incident she 15 discusses is her own. (See generally id.) As such, she is unable to show “deliberate 16 indifference” on the part of Lake Stevens.1 See Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1360; Flores, 758 17 F.3d at 1159. Because Ms. Moreno-Toro fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact 18 19 1 The Supreme Court has left open the possibility that there may exist a “narrow range of 20 circumstances [in which] a pattern of similar violations might not be necessary to show deliberate indifference.” See Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1360. The Ninth Circuit has stated that for a failure to train to 21 fall within that narrow range, the unconstitutional consequences must be “patently obvious.” See Flores, 758 F.3d at 1160. The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit, however, have yet to identify any nonto that 22 hypothetical failure do traineven meets that standard. See id. Ms. Moreno-Toro’s conclusory allegations—which not discuss the standard—necessarily fall short. ORDER- 6 1 regarding at least two elements of her “failure to train” Monell claim, summary judgment 2 for Lake Stevens is proper. See Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at 1106. 3 4 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Lake Stevens’ motion for summary 5 judgment (Dkt. # 30). 6 Dated this 10th day of November, 2014. 7 A 8 9 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER- 7
]]>
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.
