Frisk v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: March 31, 2023
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00005
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Mar 31, 2023 3 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 RICCI K. FRISK, No. 2:21-CV-00005-SAB 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING 12 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, and DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 13 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 14 HEARINGS, REMANDING TO STATE 15 Defendants. COURT 16 17 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissal, 18 ECF No. 35. The motion was considered without oral argument. Plaintiff is 19 represented by Christopher Hogue. Defendants are represented by David L. Force 20 and Katherine A. McNulty. The Court took the motion under advisement and 21 issued a show cause order to the parties, ECF No. 48. Upon considering the 22 briefing, the caselaw, and the parties’ arguments, the Court grants Defendants’ 23 Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissal and Remands this case back to the 24 Spokane County Superior Court. 25 Legal Standard 26 Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no 27 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 28 1 matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). There is no genuine issue for trial unless 2 there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a 3 verdict in that party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 4 (1986). The moving party has the initial burden of showing the absence of a 5 genuine issue of fact for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). 6 If the moving party meets its initial burden, the non-moving party must go beyond 7 the pleadings and “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for 8 trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. 9 In addition to showing there are no questions of material fact, the moving 10 party must also show it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smith v. Univ. of 11 Wash. Law Sch., 233 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2000). The moving party is entitled 12 to judgment as a matter of law when the non-moving party fails to make a 13 sufficient showing on an essential element of a claim on which the non-moving 14 party has the burden of proof. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The non-moving party 15 cannot rely on conclusory allegations alone to create an issue of material fact. 16 Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993). 17 When considering a motion for summary judgment, a court may neither 18 weigh the evidence nor assess credibility; instead, “the evidence of the non-movant 19 is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” 20 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. 21 Applicable Law and Analysis 22 States and state government entities are considered “arms of the State” 23 pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 24 U.S. 58, 70 (1989). Unlike Monell liability, states and state’s entities are not 25 “persons” under § 1983. Id. at 71.; see Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of 26 New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). 27 28 1 Here, Defendants are not persons subject to a § 1983. Therefore, the two 2 federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed. 3 Remaining State Claims 4 A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has 5 dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 6 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725–26 (1966) 7 (“Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not 8 insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as 9 well.”). Here, the Court has granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 10 concerning the federal claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental 11 jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims and remands those claims to Spokane 12 County Superior Court. 13 // 14 // 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissal, ECF No. 35, is 3 GRANTED. 2. The District Court Executive is directed to enter judgment in favor of 5 Defendants and against Plaintiff with respect to the 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims. 3. The above-captioned case is REMANDED to the Spokane County 8 Superior Court. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order, provide copies to counsel, and close the file. 11 DATED this 31st day of March 2023. 12 13 14 : Shockey ec toar Stanley A. Bastian V7 Chief United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY WINCNAENT. DEMIANTNING TA CTATE CAMDT 44