Rindal v. McDermott

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 6, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01843
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE

7 STEVEN MICHAEL RINDAL, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01843-RSL 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SOUDERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

10 DONALD MCDERMOTT; JAMES A. WINCHESTER; ALAN R. SOUDERS; 11 SANDRA F. PERKINS; RICHARD A. 12 WEYRICH; LISA M. JANICKI; PETER BROWNING; RONALD G. WESEN; AND 13 THE COUNTY OF SKAGIT,

14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Souders’ Motion to Dismiss 17 Under FRCP 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).” Dkt. # 18. Having reviewed the memoranda 18 19 submitted by the parties, including plaintiff’s corrected response, the Court finds as 20 follows: 21 Background 22 Plaintiff alleges that he has been a chiropractor for fifty years in the State of 23 24 Washington. During the COVID-19 pandemic, one of his patients, defendant James 25 Winchester, complained to the Washington Department of Health that plaintiff was not 26 wearing a mask. The Chiropractic Quality Assurance Commission sent plaintiff a 27 1 “barrage of correspondence” which culminated in the revocation of his chiropractic 2 license. Dkt. # 3 at ¶ 22. 3 In December 2021, plaintiff sent Winchester a document titled “Common Law 4 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION OF TRUTH – 2nd Notice of Constitutional Violations, 5 6 Notice to Cure, Notice to Cease and Desist” in which he accused Winchester of 7 practicing medicine without a license, filing false claims/statements, and engaging in 8 libel and slander in violation of state law. Dkt. # 3-1 at 67-75.1 Plaintiff unilaterally 9 deemed all of the allegations asserted in the AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION OF TRUTH 10 11 to be admitted, declared Winchester in default, demanded payment of $24,127,180.33 in 12 settlement of his claims, and noted that failure to pay would create a consent to judgment 13 and result in an encumbrance/lien/garnishment of Winchester’s assets. Dkt. # 1-3 at 72- 14 73. 15 16 On or about January 26, 2022, defendant Alan Souders sent plaintiff a letter 17

18 1 At one point in the letter, plaintiff asserts that “Respondents,” a term which included 19 Winchester, defendant Don McDermott, Governor Jay Inslee, and twenty-two other people,

20 committed the following crimes that have infringed on Rindal’s God-given, Constitutionally protected Rights[]: DISCRIMINATION, DEPRIVATION OF 21 RIGHTS, RACKEEERING (RICO), ACTING UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, NUREMBERG CODE #1, HARASSMENT, PERJURY, INTIMIDATION, 22 DOMESTIC TERRORISM, SUBORNATION OF PERURY, VIOLATED ADA (AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT TITLE III), VIOLATED HIPAA LAWS, 23 VIOLATED FREEDOM OF RELIGION, VIOLATED FREEDOM OF SPEECH, COERCION, HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION, FRAUD AND FALSE 24 STATEMENTS, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE, MISPRISION OF FELONY, OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL 25 CONSPIRACY, SEDITION AND INSURRECTION, BAD FAITH CLAIMS, EMBARASSMENT, HUMILIATION, LIBEL and SLANDER and punished 26 Rindal without due process in absence of any actual crime against life, liberty or property. 27 Dkt. # 3-1 at 70. 1 stating: 2 I write today on behalf of my client, James Winchester. Knowing that you 3 have threatened legal action against Mr. Winchester, and because of Mr. Winchester’s absence from the State, please address any correspondence, 4 service or any other matter concerning Mr. Winchester to me, at the address 5 shown on the letterhead, and not to him. 6 Dkt. # 3-1 at 117. Plaintiff then sent Souders and Winchester an “AFFIDAVIT/ 7 8 DECLARATION OF TRUTH,” accusing Souders of falsely claiming that plaintiff had 9 threatened Winchester with legal action and declaring that Souders was therefore joined 10 as a “Respondent” who was jointly and severally liable for $75,500,350.00. Dkt. # 3-1 at 11 118-22. The Amended Complaint similarly alleges that Souders “falsely claimed Plaintiff 12 threatened WINCHESTER” and is in default under the terms of plaintiff’s affidavit. Dkt. 13 14 # 3 at ¶¶ 27 and 28. Souders seeks dismissal of the claims asserted against him on the 15 grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over purely state law claims and 16 that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 17 Pendant Party Jurisdiction 18 19 In United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966), the 20 Supreme Court held that federal courts deciding claims that fall within their federal- 21 question jurisdiction may decide state law claims if they “derive from a common nucleus 22 of operative fact” and comprise “but one constitutional ‘case’”. When asked to extend the 23 24 exercise of pendent jurisdiction to claims involving a party against whom no claim within 25 the court’s jurisdiction had been asserted, the Supreme Court declined, finding that 26 pendent party jurisdiction would not be appropriate absent authorization from Congress 27 1 and a finding that the claims were part of the same constitutional case or controversy. 2 Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989). The required statutory authorization was 3 provided in 1990 when Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1367 which expressly extended 4 supplemental jurisdiction to “claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional 5 6 parties.” Thus, as long as the claims asserted against the party are part of the same 7 constitutional case under Article III and derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, 8 the district court has the discretion to exercise pendent party jurisdiction. Mendoza v. 9 Zirkle Fruit Co., 301 F.3d 1163, 1173 (9th Cir. 2002). 10 11 Plaintiff’s claims against Souders arise from events that are temporally and 12 substantively distinct from the events giving rise to the federal claims asserted against the 13 other defendants. Souders is accused of making a false declaration in a letter dated 14 January 26, 2022. The accuracy and legal import of that allegation can be determined 15 16 without delving into the regulatory actions triggered by Winchester’s October 2020 17 complaint or the Skagit County defendants’ response to plaintiff’s communications. 18 Because the state law claims against Souders do not arise from the same nucleus of 19 operative facts giving rise to his federal claims, supplemental jurisdiction does not exist.2 20 21 Failure to State a Claim for Relief 22 Because the Court lacks the power to hear and decide plaintiff’s state law claims 23 24 25 2 In his opposition to Souders’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff suggests that, as an officer of the court, Souders had an obligation to report the felonies plaintiff reported in the AFFIDAVIT/ 26 DECLARATION OF TRUTH. The Amended Complaint does not assert any claim against Souders for failure to report or investigate. Nor is the Court aware of any duty imposed on a 27 private person – whether that person is an attorney or not – to take it upon themselves to report a felony simply because plaintiff believed a felony occurred. 1 against defendant Souders, it need not consider whether those claims have been 2 adequately pled. 3

4 For all of the foregoing reasons, Souders’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 18) is 5 6 GRANTED. 7

8 Dated this 6th day of July, 2023. 9 10 ROBERT S. LASNIK 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27