Magana Jr v. Yakima County

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: June 6, 2023
• Docket: 1:23-cv-03041
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE 2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Jun 06, 2023 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 FRANCISCO VALENCIA MAGANA, 10 JR., No. 1:23-CV-03041-SAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER GRANTING 13 YAKIMA COUNTY; SHERIFF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 14 ROBERT UDELL; and DEPUTY J. DISMISS 15 HINZE, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6. Plaintiff is 19 represented by Douglas K. Garrison. Defendants are represented by Amanda C. 20 Bley and Matthew Sonneby. 21 Defendants move the Court to dismiss Defendant Yakima County Sheriff’s 22 Office and Defendant County’s “Agents, Employees, and Deputies” with 23 prejudice. Defendant also move to dismiss Plaintiff’s state constitutional law claim 24 against all Defendants. 25 Having reviewed the parties’ briefing and applicable law, the Court grants 26 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 27 Subdivisions of local governments are not legal entities capable of being 28 sued. Bradford v. City of Seattle, 557 F.Supp.2d 1189, 1207 (W.D. Wash. 2008). A 1 County’s “Agents, Employees, and Deputies” are synonymous with the County 2 itself. Similarly, and barring an unusual circumstance, “Doe pleading” is not 3 permitted in the Ninth Circuit. Craig v. United States, 413 F.2d 854, 856 (9th Cir. 4 1969; see also General Orders 84-37, 13-37-1. Here, Yakima County Sheriff’s 5 Office and its “Agencies, Employees, and Deputies” are not legal entities capable 6 of being sued and Plaintiff had ample time (18-months) to investigate potential 7 “John Doe” defendants. Therefore, Yakima County Sheriff’s Office and its 8 “Agents, Employees, and Deputies” are dismissed with prejudice. 9 Washington law contains no counterpart to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 10 Washington courts reject “invitations to establish a cause of action for damages 11 based upon [Washington State] constitutional violations ‘without the aid of 12 augmentative legislation.’” Blinka v. Wash. State Bar Ass’n., 36 P.3d 1094, 1102 13 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Svs. Amusement, Inc. v. State, 500 P.2d 1253, 14 1254 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims for violating state-law 15 constitutional rights are also dismissed with prejudice. 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED. 3 2. All claims against Defendants Yakima County Sheriff's Office and unidentified “Agents, Employees, and Deputies” are dismissed with prejudice. 5 3. Plaintiff's Washington State Constitution Article 1 Section 7 cause of action is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter 8|| this Order, update the caption, and to provide copies to counsel. 9 DATED this 6th day of June 2023. 10 11 12 Sfuleyld Ecsta 14 G t= 15 Stanley A. Bastian 6 Chief United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ADNTD CODRANTING NEEENTNANTO UIATIOAN TA NICNITCE 4 2