James v. Asian Family Market

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6

7 HENRY JAMES, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00212-RSL 8 Plaintiff, v. 9 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JUAN DELGADO’S MOTION FOR 10 ASIAN FAMILY MARKET, et al., SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11 Defendants. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Officer Juan Delgado’s Motion 14 for Summary Judgment.” Dkt. # 87. Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the 15 facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of 16 17 material fact that would preclude the entry of judgment as a matter of law. The party 18 seeking summary dismissal of the case “bears the initial responsibility of informing the 19 district court of the basis for its motion” (Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 20 (1986)) and “citing to particular parts of materials in the record” that show the absence of a 21 22 genuine issue of material fact (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Once the moving party has satisfied 23 its burden, it is entitled to summary judgment if the non-moving party fails to designate 24 “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 25 324. The Court will “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party 26 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JUAN DELGADO’S 1 . . . and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Colony Cove Props., LLC v. 2 City of Carson, 888 F.3d 445, 450 (9th Cir. 2018). Although the Court must reserve for the 3 trier of fact genuine issues regarding credibility, the weight of the evidence, and legitimate 4 5 inferences, the “mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving 6 party’s position will be insufficient” to avoid judgment. City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. 7 Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1049 (9th Cir. 2014); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 8 242, 252 (1986). Factual disputes whose resolution would not affect the outcome of the 9 10 suit are irrelevant to the consideration of a motion for summary judgment. S. Cal. Darts 11 Ass’n v. Zaffina, 762 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 2014). In other words, summary judgment 12 should be granted where the nonmoving party fails to offer evidence from which a 13 reasonable fact finder could return a verdict in its favor. Singh v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 14 15 925 F.3d 1053, 1071 (9th Cir. 2019). 16 Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the 17 parties,1 and taking the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Court finds as 18 follows: 19

20 21

22 1 Plaintiff did not provide a declaration with his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Because he is 23 proceeding pro se, the Court has considered the non-conclusory factual assertions in his opposition as if they were made under penalty of perjury on the assumption that the defect could be corrected at trial. Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) (“At the summary judgment stage, we do not focus on the admissibility of the 24 evidence’s form. We instead focus on the admissibility of its contents.”) (citations omitted). 25

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JUAN DELGADO’S 1 A. Background 2 At approximately 2:00 pm on January 25, 2023, plaintiff was arrested and 3 transported to the South Correctional Entity (“SCORE Jail”). When plaintiff met Officer 4 5 Delgado during the intake process, defendant stated, “So you’re the one that sued 6 Lieutenant Burdulis. We got you now.” Dkt. # 89 at 27. Officer Delgado escorted plaintiff 7 to a cell to await a medical screening. The cell had toilet facilities and a bench, but no 8 running water or bed. Plaintiff was not given a blanket or his blood pressure medicines. 9 10 Plaintiff was not evaluated by the medical staff until 10:00 am the next morning. Sleeping 11 on the cold, hard floor of the cell aggravated plaintiff’s pre-existing shoulder injury. 12 Plaintiff was ultimately released from SCORE Jail at 6:45 pm on January 26, 2023. 13 Plaintiff asserts that the length of his confinement, the delay in the medical screening, and 14 15 the refusal to provide medical attention for his shoulder were engineered by Officer 16 Delgado in retaliation for plaintiff having filed a lawsuit against another law enforcement 17 officer in violation of plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.2 18 B. Discussion 19 The Court declines Officer Delgado’s request that plaintiff’s testimony regarding 20 21 what Officer Delgado did or said be ignored because it is “self-serving.” While Officer 22 Delgado does not remember meeting plaintiff on January 25th and the jail records identify 23 other officers as responsible for intake and the initial cell assignment, the documentary 24 25

26 2 Plaintiff has withdrawn or abandoned his First Amendment claim against this defendant (Dkt. # 89 at 24) and has not asserted an equal protection claim against Officer Delgado (Dkt. # 96 at 3). ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JUAN DELGADO’S 1 evidence does not contradict plaintiff’s testimony, the testimony is very specific regarding 2 Officer Delgado’s appearance and his statements, and the testimony is not otherwise 3 incredible. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Officer Delgado 4 5 identified plaintiff as a person who had sued a fellow officer, made a vaguely menacing 6 statement, and then left him in a cold, barren cell where he waited 20 hours for a medical 7 examination. 8 Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to support his supposition that Officer 9 10 Delgado in any way prolonged plaintiff’s stay in the first cell, delayed the medical 11 screening, or was aware that plaintiff wanted or needed medication, additional clothing, or 12 bedding. Plaintiff appears to recognize as much in his opposition memorandum, asserting 13 that he filed this lawsuit against SCORE Jail and is seeking to hold it liable for the 14 15 combined actions of its guards, wardens, and staff, including Officer Delgado. Dkt. # 96 at 16 ¶¶ 7 and 13. But SCORE Jail is not a named defendant, Dkt. # 7 at 2-3, and plaintiff has 17 failed to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the retaliation/due process claim he 18 asserted against Officer Delgado, id. at 7. 19

20 21 // 22

23 // 24

25 26 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JUAN DELGADO’S 1 C. Conclusion 2 For all of the foregoing reasons, Officer Delgado’s motion for summary judgment is 3 GRANTED. The claims against Officer Delgado are DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is 4 5 directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff. 6

7 Dated this 15th day of April, 2024.

9 Robert S. Lasnik 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JUAN DELGADO’S