Haines v. City of Centralia

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7 JEFFREY HAINES, 8 Cause No. C20-5576RSL Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART 10 LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT CITY OF CENTRALIA, et al.., 11 Defendants. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Amend 15 Complaint.” Dkt. # 16. Courts “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” 16 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). There is a “strong policy in favor of allowing amendment” (Kaplan v. 18 Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1994)), and “[c]ourts may decline to grant leave to amend 19 only if there is strong evidence of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the 20 movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue 21 prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, or futility of 22 23 amendment, etc.” (Sonoma County Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 24 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). The underlying 25 purpose of Rule 15 is “to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or 26 technicalities.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 27 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 1 Having considered the proposed amended complaint, the Court finds that leave to amend 2 should be granted in part. In his initial and amended complaints, plaintiff sought damages for 3 unlawful incarceration, due process violations, and the deprivation of his right to counsel: no 4 legal theories were specified. Dkt. # 1-1 at 2; # 8 at 2. In the proposed amendment, plaintiff adds 5 a claim for “damages for violation of plaintiff’s federal and Washington state constitutional 6 7 rights; and any other and further relief supported by the pleadings and evidence and approved by 8 the court.” Dkt. # 16-1 at 3. 9 Washington law contains no counterpart to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which creates a civil 10 cause of action for violations of the United States Constitution by persons acting under color of state law. Sisley v. City of Seattle, 179 Wn. App. 1021 (2014). 11 Washington courts have consistently rejected invitations to establish a cause of 12 action for damages based upon constitutional violations. Blinka v. Wash. State Bar 13 Ass’n, 109 Wash. App. 575, 578 (2001). 14 Peltier v. Sacks, 328 F. Supp.3d 1170, 1185 (W.D. Wash. 2018). Thus, to the extent plaintiff 15 seeks to add a claim for damages for violations of the Washington state constitution, the 16 amendment would be futile and will not be permitted. 17 Defendants’ objections based on prejudice are overruled. The fact that defendants chose 18 19 to file a motion for summary judgment one month after removing the case to federal court and 20 before a case management schedule was established does not make plaintiff’s request to amend 21 untimely, preclude discovery or the further procedural development of the case, or otherwise 22 prejudice defendants’ ability to defend this litigation. 23 24 25 For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Dkt. # 16) is 26 GRANTED in part. Plaintiff may, within twenty-one days of the date of this Order, file a second 27 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 1 amended complaint substantially in the form of Dkt. # 16-2 but deleting the phrase “and 2 Washington state” from page 3, line 2. 3 4 5 Dated this 16th day of December, 2020. 6 7 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER GRANTING IN PART