Cody Hart, Derrill Fussell, Kevin Ewing, Timothy Garrison, and Kathy Lafreniere v. Skagit County Superior Court, Melissa A. Beaton, in her official capacity as Clerk of Skagit County Superior Court; and Rosanna Wadkins, in her official capacity as Administrator of Skagit County Superior Court

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 29, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00104
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CODY HART, DERRILL FUSSELL, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-00104-JNW 8 KEVIN EWING, TIMOTHY GARRISON, and KATHY DISMISSAL ORDER 9 LAFRENIERE, Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 SKAGIT COUNTY SUPERIOR 12 COURT, MELISSA A. BEATON, in her official capacity as Clerk of Skagit 13 County Superior Court; and ROSANNA WADKINS, in her official capacity as 14 Administrator of Skagit County Superior Court, 15 Defendants. 16 1. INTRODUCTION 17 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Skagit County Superior 18 Court, Melissa Beaton, and Rosanna Wadkins’ motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 11. 19 Having considered the parties’ filings, the relevant record, and the law, the Court 20 GRANTS the motion. 21

22 23 1 2. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs Cody Hart, Derrill Fussell, Kevin Ewing, and Kathy LaFreniere

3 filed recall petitions in Skagit County Superior Court seeking to remove several 4 County officials and judges.1 This dispute concerns three administrative actions 5 that Defendants Melissa Beaton and Rossana Wadkins took during those recall 6 proceedings: 7 1. Wadkins reassigned Plaintiff Hart’s recall matter to a visiting judge. See Dkt. 8 No. 8 (the “FAC”) ¶ 26.

9 2. Beaton failed to docket certain documents filed by Plaintiff Hart. FAC ¶ 27. 10 3. Wadkins set a special hearing involving Plaintiff LaFreniere. FAC ¶ 29. 11 Plaintiffs then brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that 12 Defendants’ actions are unconstitutional and violate state and federal law. Among 13 other things, Plaintiffs allege that: (1) Defendants retaliated against them for filing 14 the recall petitions; (2) Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiffs’ procedural and 15 substantive due process rights; (3) Defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of

16 their constitutional rights, including their right to access the courts; and (4) 17 Defenedants committed related violations of state and federal law. FAC ¶¶ 41–61. 18 Defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 19 Dkt. No. 11. 20

21 1 Defendants request judicial notice of several documents filed with the Skagit County Superior Court reflecting these proceedings. Dkt. No. 12. The Court is 22 aware of these proceedings—and Plaintiffs’ multiple related lawsuits brought in this district—but declines to take judicial notice of them, as doing so is unnecessary 23 to resolve the Motion to Dismiss. 1 3. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Courts will grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss only if the complaint fails

3 to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell 4 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A claim 5 is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 6 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 7 alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 8 556). While Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, it “demands more

9 than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. at 679. 10 “Conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat an 11 otherwise proper motion to dismiss.” Vasquez v. L.A. Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 12 (9th Cir. 2007); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 13 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]leadings must be construed 14 so as to do justice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). Thus, a “document filed pro se is to be 15 liberally construed and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held

16 to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. 17 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations omitted). Courts are not to “dismiss a pro 18 se complaint without leave to amend unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the 19 deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.’” Rosati v. Igbinoso, 20 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th 21 Cir. 2012) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988)).

22 23 1 4. DISCUSSION 2 4.1 Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by quasi-judicial immunity. 3 Court personnel generally enjoy quasi-judicial immunity for actions taken in 4 connection with their official duties. See Acres Bonusing, Inc v. Marston, 17 F.4th 5 901, 916 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court for Dist. of Nevada, 6 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987). This immunity also bars claims for injunctive 7 relief brought against court personnel under Section 1983, see Munoz v. Superior Ct. 8 of Los Angeles Cnty., 91 F.4th 977, 981 (9th Cir. 2024), even when a plaintiff 9 invokes Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), see Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 10 595 U.S. 30, 39 (2021) (Ex parte Young “does not normally permit federal courts to 11 issue injunctions against state-court judges or clerks.”). 12 Applying these principles, the Court concludes that quasi-judicial immunity 13 bars Plaintiffs claims. As court clerks and administrators, Defendants Wadkins and 14 Beaton were required to perform tasks that included assigning (and reassigning) 15 matters to balance the case load among the sitting judges, managing the court’s 16 files and dockets, and setting court proceedings, such as hearings and trials. These 17 duties are not merely ministerial. They are essential to the administration of justice 18 and “when viewed in context[,] are actually a part of the judicial function.” In re 19 Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 952 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended (Sept. 6, 2002). These 20 essential actions2—filing, docketing, and setting hearings—are what form the 21

22 2 Even Beaton’s alleged failure to file Plaintiffs’ court documents—which would be better categorized as inaction—fall under the umbrella of quasi-judicial immunity. 23 1 gravamen of Plaintiffs’ suit. The Court thus finds that Wadkins and Beaton are 2 immune under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity. Accordingly, Plaintiffs

3 claims are dismissed. 4 4.2 Failure to state a claim. 5 Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim upon 6 which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court need not reach these 7 issues, however, as the invocation of quasi-judicial immunity provides sufficient 8 grounds for dismissing this action. 9 4.3 Leave to amend would be futile. 10 Ordinarily, when a court dismisses a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, it should 11 grant leave to amend, even if no request to amend is made. Flowers v. First 12 Hawaiian Bank, 295 F.3d 966, 976 (9th Cir. 2002). But leave to amend may be 13 denied where amendment would be futile. Id. 14 In this case, the Court concludes that granting leave to amend would be 15 futile. The claims against Beaton and Wadkins necessarily relate to their roles as 16 court personnel, and therefore quasi-judicial immunity represents a fundamental 17 barrier to this Court’s ability to hear the case. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ suit against 18 Skagit County Superior Court is likely immune to suit under the Eleventh 19 Amendment. See Munoz v. Super. Ct. of Los Angeles Cnty., 91 F.4th 977, 979 (9th 20 21 Cf. Rodriguez v. Weprin, 116 F.3d 62, 66 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding immunity applied to 22 clerk who was alleged to have failed to properly manage the court calendar).

23 1 Cir. 2024); Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 2 1110 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that a state court is a state entity for Eleventh

3 Amendment purposes). No amendment could overcome these defects. 4 5. CONCLUSION 5 In sum, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Dkt. No. 11. 6 Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 7 8 Dated this 29th day of June, 2026.

9 A Jamal N. Whitehead 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23