Sims v. City of Seattle

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 10 11 ANTHONY SIMS, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00483-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO v. CERTIFY INTERLOCUTORY 13 CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal APPEAL AS FRIVOLOUS 14 corporation, and ROBERT BROWN, GREGORY NASH, GARRETT 15 FOLLETTE, and BRADLEY RICHARDSON, Officers of the Seattle 16 Police Department, 17 Defendants. 18

19 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal as 20 Frivolous (Dkt. No. 66). Having reviewed Defendants’ response (Dkt. No. 67), Plaintiff’s reply 21 (Dkt. No. 68), and the relevant record, the Court DENIES the motion. 22 Plaintiff argues that genuine factual disputes preclude summary adjudication on several 23 issues presented, thus rendering an interlocutory appeal unavailable. See Dkt. No. 66 at 2–4; Dkt. 24 No. 68 at 1–5. Plaintiff further argues in essence that the Court’s ruling on the legality of the 1 trunk search is beyond dispute. See id. at 4–6. In response, Defendants point out that an 2 interlocutory appeal is available for issues of law. See Dkt. No. 67 at 3–4. Defendants further 3 argue that the Court’s failure to analyze qualified immunity on an individualized basis is an issue 4 of law subject to review, and that the Court made conclusions of law that are also subject to

5 appeal. See Dkt. No. 67 at 2, 5–12. 6 “[A] summary judgment order denying qualified immunity is immediately appealable.” 7 Hopson v. Alexander, 71 F.4th 692, 696–97 (9th Cir. 2023); accord Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 8 511, 530 (1985) (“[A] district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it 9 turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 10 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.”). However, an interlocutory appeal is not 11 available “when the district court determines that factual issues genuinely in dispute preclude 12 summary adjudication.” Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 188 (2011) (citing Johnson v. Jones, 515 13 U.S. 304, 313 (1995)). Further, “a district court may certify in writing that the appeal is frivolous 14 or waived,” thus retaining jurisdiction over the matter. Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105

15 (9th Cir. 1992). An appeal is frivolous “if the results are obvious or the arguments of error are 16 wholly without merit.” Amwest Mortg. Corp. v. Grady, 925 F.2d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 The Court finds that Defendants’ appeal is not frivolous, and the Court will not certify it 18 as such. Defendants have raised a viable issue regarding the manner in which the Court analyzed 19 qualified immunity. See Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1287 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[I]n 20 resolving a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a court must carefully 21 examine the specific factual allegations against each individual defendant (as viewed in a light 22 most favorable to the plaintiff).”); see also Mondragon v. City of Fremont, 854 F. App’x 197, 23 198 (9th Cir. 2021) (mem.) (vacating and remanding where the district court “discussed the

24 1 officers as a group and did not properly analyze each officer’s actions individually”).1 2 Defendants have also raised an issue regarding the Court’s rulings on clearly established law, 3 which are legal conclusions. See Morales v. Fry, 873 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he 4 ‘clearly established’ inquiry is a question of law that only a judge can decide.”). Although

5 Plaintiff vigorously disputes Defendants’ arguments, it cannot be said that “the results are 6 obvious” or that “the arguments of error are wholly without merit.” Amwest Morg. Corp., 925 7 F.2d at 1165. 8 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeals as 9 Frivolous (Dkt. No. 66). 10 Dated this 19th day of September 2023. 11 A 12 Tana Lin United States District Judge 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 Defendants did not provide these authorities in their briefing on summary judgment. Nor did Defendants file a 24 motion for reconsideration, which may have been appropriate in this situation.