Gach v. Lyons

W.D. Washington

Gach v. Lyons

DecidedFebruary 13, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01285

StatusUnknown

This text of Gach v. Lyons (Gach v. Lyons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gach v. Lyons, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 KOANG GACH, CASE NO. C24-1285-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 GRANT LYONS, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Grant Lyons’s unopposed motion to 16 dismiss (Dkt. No. 17). Having reviewed the motion and the relevant record, the Court finds good 17 cause, and GRANTS the motion, as further described below. 18 Plaintiff filed a pro se § 1983 complaint on August 16, 2024, alleging that Defendant law 19 enforcement officers violated his rights by using excessive force against him. (See Dkt. Nos. 1, 9 20 at 4–6.) Plaintiff’s allegations are spare, but Plaintiff is specific as to one critical thing—the date 21 of the events at issue: May 11, 2018. (Dkt. No. 9 at 6.) Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 22 12(b)(6) on December 19, 2024, arguing Plaintiff’s claims are barred by a three-year statute of 23 limitations. (See generally Dkt. No. 17.) They provided Plaintiff notice the same day. (Dkt. No. 24 18.) It informed Plaintiff that he was entitled to respond and that the Court may consider failure 25 to do so as an admission that the Defendant’s motion has merit. (Dkt. No. 18 at 1–2) (see also 26 LCR 7(b)(2)). 1 To note, in Washington, a plaintiff has three years to file a § 1983 action, from the time 2 the plaintiff knew or should have known the factual basis for the claim. See RCW 4.16.080(2); 3 Gausvik v. Perez, 392 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Bagley v. CMC Real Est. Corp., 4 923 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1991) (applying RCW 4.16.080(2) statute of limitations to a § 1983 5 action in Washington). Again, Plaintiff alleges the events here occurred and accrued May 11, 6 2018. As Defendant observes, (Dkt. No. 17 at 2), Plaintiff did not file his complaint until more 7 than six years later, well outside the statute of limitations. 8 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED. All claims against 9 Defendant Lyons are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Clerk is directed 10 to send a copy of this order to Plaintiff. 11 12 DATED this 13th day of February 2025. A 13 14 15 John C. Coughenour 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 KOANG GACH, CASE NO. C24-1285-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 GRANT LYONS, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Grant Lyons’s unopposed motion to 16 dismiss (Dkt. No. 17). Having reviewed the motion and the relevant record, the Court finds good 17 cause, and GRANTS the motion, as further described below. 18 Plaintiff filed a pro se § 1983 complaint on August 16, 2024, alleging that Defendant law 19 enforcement officers violated his rights by using excessive force against him. (See Dkt. Nos. 1, 9 20 at 4–6.) Plaintiff’s allegations are spare, but Plaintiff is specific as to one critical thing—the date 21 of the events at issue: May 11, 2018. (Dkt. No. 9 at 6.) Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 22 12(b)(6) on December 19, 2024, arguing Plaintiff’s claims are barred by a three-year statute of 23 limitations. (See generally Dkt. No. 17.) They provided Plaintiff notice the same day. (Dkt. No. 24 18.) It informed Plaintiff that he was entitled to respond and that the Court may consider failure 25 to do so as an admission that the Defendant’s motion has merit. (Dkt. No. 18 at 1–2) (see also 26 LCR 7(b)(2)). 1 To note, in Washington, a plaintiff has three years to file a § 1983 action, from the time 2 the plaintiff knew or should have known the factual basis for the claim. See RCW 4.16.080(2); 3 Gausvik v. Perez, 392 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Bagley v. CMC Real Est. Corp., 4 923 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1991) (applying RCW 4.16.080(2) statute of limitations to a § 1983 5 action in Washington). Again, Plaintiff alleges the events here occurred and accrued May 11, 6 2018. As Defendant observes, (Dkt. No. 17 at 2), Plaintiff did not file his complaint until more 7 than six years later, well outside the statute of limitations. 8 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED. All claims against 9 Defendant Lyons are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Clerk is directed 10 to send a copy of this order to Plaintiff. 11 12 DATED this 13th day of February 2025. A 13 14 15 John C. Coughenour 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gach v. Lyons, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gach-v-lyons-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack