Hanrahan v. King County

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 8, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00144
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 KEVIN HANRAHAN, 8 Plaintiff, C20-144 TSZ 9 v. ORDER 10 KING COUNTY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant King County’s (County) 13 Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 8. Having reviewed all papers filed in 14 relation to the motion,1 the Court enters the following order. 15 Background 16 On October 18, 2019, Hanrahan filed a complaint against the County in state 17 court. Complaint (docket no. 1-2 at 2). The complaint alleged that the County’s 18 negligence led to Hanrahan’s cellmate at the King County Correctional Facility (KCCF) 19 attacking him on August 16, 2016. Id. The complaint further alleged that the KCCF 20 21 22 1 Plaintiff Kevin Hanrahan did not file a response to the County’s motion. 1 officers at KCCF had violated Hanrahan’s “constitutional and due process rights.” Id. at 2 4; see 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The County filed a notice to remove the case to federal court.

3 Notice of Removal (docket no. 1 at 1–3). 4 The County then filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asserting that the 5 applicable statute of limitations bars Hanrahan’s federal claims. The County further 6 asserts that the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over Hanrahan’s remaining 7 state law claims. 8 Discussion

9 A. Summary Judgment Standard 10 The Court shall grant summary judgment if no genuine issue of material fact exists 11 and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 12 The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue 13 of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A fact is material if

14 it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty 15 Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To survive a motion for summary judgment, the 16 adverse party must present affirmative evidence, which “is to be believed” and from 17 which all “justifiable inferences” are to be favorably drawn. Id. at 255, 257. When the 18 record, however, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the

19 non-moving party, summary judgment is warranted. See Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 20 529 (2006) (“Rule 56 ‘mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for 21 discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to 22 1 establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that 2 party will bear the burden of proof at trial.’” (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322)).

3 B. Statute of Limitations 4 For section 1983 claims, courts apply the forum state’s personal injury statute of 5 limitations. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 240 (1989). In Washington State, the statute 6 of limitations for personal injury actions is three years. RCW 4.16.080(2). A court must 7 dismiss a claim if the statute of limitations bars it. Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 8 F.3d 992, 997 (9th Cir. 2006).

9 Hanrahan’s assault occurred on August 16, 2016. Accordingly, the three-year 10 statute of limitations ran on August 16, 2019. Because Hanrahan did not file his lawsuit 11 until October 18, 2019, the statute of limitations bars his constitutional claims. 12 C. Remand 13 The County next asserts that, because only state law claims remain, the Court

14 should decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claims. “A district court’s 15 decision whether to exercise [supplemental] jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over 16 which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF 17 Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009). The Court exercises its discretion to retain 18 supplemental jurisdiction over Hanrahan’s remaining claims.

19 Conclusion 20 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS: 21 (1) Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (docket no. 8) is 22 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s federal claims are DISMISSED with 1 prejudice. The Court exercises its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the 2 remaining claims.

3 (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated this 8th day of January, 2021. 6 7 A 8 THOMAS S. ZILLY United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22