Michael Schermerhorn, V. Wslcb And Cannabis Board

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: July 21, 2025
• Docket: 86929-9
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

MICHAEL SCHERMERHORN/CO-OP 138, No. 86929-9-I

Appellant, DIVISION ONE

v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION

WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR AND CANNABIS BOARD and WILLIAM N. LUKELA (Official Capacity Only) and SKAGIT COUNTY DRUG ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE (SCIDEU) and SKAGIT COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE and ALL PROSECUTOR'S WHO TOUCHED MY CASE (In their Individual and Corporate Capacities) and FRANK BLACK (In his Individual and Corporate Capacities) and SKAGIT COUNTY SHERIFF DON MCDERMOTT (In his Individual and Corporate Capacities) and THE OFFICE OF THE SKAGIT COUNTY SHERIFF and ANACORTES PD and ANACORTES UNKNOWN OFFICERS, and JESSE C. WILLIAMS, ESQ.,

Respondents.

COBURN, J. — Michael Schermerhorn appeals from the dismissal of his lawsuit

against the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board, Board executive director

William Lukela, Washington State Patrol detective Frank Black (collectively “State

Defendants”), Skagit County Drug Enforcement Task Force, Skagit County Prosecutor’s 86929-9/2

Office, “all prosecutors who touched my case,” Skagit County Sheriff Don McDermott,

the Office of the Skagit County Sheriff (collectively “County Defendants”), Anacortes

Police Department, Anacortes Unknown Officers (collectively “Anacortes Defendants”)

and Jesse Williams. Because Schermerhorn does not make any cognizable legal

argument, we dismiss his appeal.

FACTS

The facts underlying this dispute were articulated in our opinion in In the Matter

of the Forfeiture of Cannabis Grow Equip., No. 86120-4-I, slip op. (Wash. Ct. App. Mar.

10, 2025) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/861204.pdf. We will

not repeat them here.

On April 20, 2023, Schermerhorn filed a lawsuit against the County Defendants

and Black under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Schermerhorn claimed that he was

entitled to relief because the County Defendants and Black violated his right to

procedural and substantive due process by illegally obtaining a search warrant for his

cannabis grow operation in September 2019. On June 29, 2023, the superior court

dismissed Schermerhorn’s lawsuit with prejudice under CR 12(b)(6) for failing to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted. Schermerhorn did not appeal.

On June 14, 2023, Schermerhorn filed a lawsuit against the Anacortes

Defendants, police chief Dave Floyd, retired director of planning Don Measamer, mayor

Matt Miller, and the Office of the Skagit County Sheriff under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and

1985. Schermerhorn claimed that he was entitled to relief because the Anacortes Police

Department failed to properly investigate his reports of burglary, illegally obtained a

search warrant for his cannabis grow operation, falsely arrested him, and caused him

2 86929-9/3

physical injury. On October 26, 2023, the superior court entered an order dismissing all

of Schermerhorn’s claims with prejudice as time-barred by the applicable statutes of

limitation. Additionally, the court found that Schermerhorn “has not established that his

untimely filing should in any way be excused through any argument of equitable tolling.”

Schermerhorn did not appeal.

Schermerhorn filed this lawsuit against the Respondents on January 17, 2024. In

his complaint, Schermerhorn asserted claims for violation of RCW 69.51A.230, violation

of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), outrage, and

deprivation of procedural and substantive due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983

and 1985 against all Respondents. Schermerhorn also asserted a claim for promissory

and equitable estoppel against the State Defendants, and claims for assault and First

Amendment violations against the Anacortes Defendants. Like in his previous lawsuits,

Schermerhorn’s claims were based upon the Respondents’ actions in relation to the

seizure of property from his cannabis grow operation in 2019.

The State Defendants, County Defendants, Anacortes Defendants, and Williams

each separately moved to dismiss all of Schermerhorn’s claims under CR 12(b)(6). The

trial court heard all of the motions at a hearing on June 5, 2024. Following the hearing,

the trial court granted all of the motions to dismiss and entered separate orders on

each. The trial court dismissed Schermerhorn’s claims against the County Defendants

on multiple grounds, including claim preclusion, untimeliness under the applicable

statutes of limitation, lack of a private action available under HIPAA, and failure to allege

any facts that would support the claims asserted. The trial court dismissed

Schermerhorn’s claims against the Anacortes Defendants on the basis of claim and

3 86929-9/4

issue preclusion, the statute of limitations, and the lack of private action available under

HIPAA and RCW 69.51A.230. The trial court dismissed Schermerhorn’s claims against

the State Defendants and against Williams without stating its reasoning.

Schermerhorn appeals.

DISCUSSION

Schermerhorn represents himself on appeal. While we recognize the difficulties

of self-representation, “‘the law does not distinguish between one who elects to conduct

his or her own legal affairs and one who seeks assistance of counsel—both are subject

to the same procedural and substantive laws.’” In re Marriage of Olson, 69 Wn. App.

621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993) (quoting In re Marriage of Wherley, 34 Wn. App. 344,

349, 661 P.2d 155 (1983)). In other words, we hold pro se litigants to the same

standards as attorneys. Id.

Pro se litigants, like those represented by counsel, must comply with all

procedural rules on appeal. Olson, 69 Wn. App. at 626. In their opening brief, appellants

must provide “assignments of error,” and “argument in support of the issues presented

for review, together with citations to legal authority and references to relevant parts of

the record.” RAP 10.3(a)(4), (6). Adherence to this rule is not “merely a technical

nicety.” In re Estate of Lint, 135 Wn.2d 518, 532, 957 P.2d 755 (1998). This court will

“not address issues that a party neither raises appropriately nor discusses meaningfully

with citations to authority.” Saviano v. Westport Amusements, Inc., 144 Wn. App. 72,

84, 180 P.3d 874 (2008) (citing RAP 10.3(a)(6)).

Although we would ordinarily exercise our discretion to consider an appeal that

contains technical flaws in compliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, State v.

4 86929-9/5

Olson, 126 Wn.2d 315, 323, 893 P.2d 629 (1995), the flaws in Schermerhorn’s brief are

far beyond technical. Schermerhorn’s brief does not contain a single citation to legal

authority. His brief also fails to identify any error made by the trial court. In fact,

Schermerhorn does not even mention the trial court’s orders of dismissal anywhere in

his brief. Because Schermerhorn does not make any cognizable legal argument

supported by authority, we are unable to reach the merits of his appeal.

CONCLUSION

The appeal is dismissed.

WE CONCUR: