Magana Jr v. Yakima County et al, No. 1:2023cv03041 - Document 21 (E.D. Wash. 2024)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 17 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART; REMANDING CASE. Case remanded to Yakima County Superior Court. Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice. Case is closed. Signed by Chief Judge Stanley A Bastian. (AY, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Magana Jr v. Yakima County et al Doc. 21 1 2 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 3 Jan 25, 2024 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 FRANCISCO VALENCIA MAGANA, No. 1:23-CV-03041-SAB 10 JR., 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER GRANTING 13 YAKIMA COUNTY SHERIFF ROBERT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 14 UDELL; and DEPUTY J. HINZE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN 15 Defendants. PART; REMANDING CASE 16 17 Before the Court is Yakima County Defendants’ Motion for Summary 18 Judgment, ECF No. 17. Plaintiff is represented by Douglas K. Garrison. 19 Defendants are represented by Amanda C. Bley and Matthew Sonneby. The 20 motion was considered without oral argument. 21 Plaintiff alleges negligence, outrage, and intentional infliction of emotional 22 distress against Deputy Hinze. It is unclear which Defendant(s) Plaintiff alleges 23 their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against. The Court construes the Complaint to allege 24 that both remaining Defendants (Deputy Hinze and Sheriff Udell) violated 25 Plaintiff’s federal civil and constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 26 Upon review of the briefing and relevant case law, the Court grants Defendants’ 27 motion for summary judgment in part and remands the remaining state-law claims 28 to the Yakima County Superior Court. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART; REMANDING CASE # 1 Dockets.Justia.com Procedural History 1 2 Defendant removed the above-mentioned matter to the Eastern District of 3 Washington on March 16, 2023, ECF No. 1. On June 6, 2023, this Court granted 4 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 15, which dismissed all claims against 5 the Yakima County Sheriff’s Office, unnamed Agents, Employees, and Deputies, 6 and dismissed a claim alleging a violation of the Washington State Constitution. 7 Defendants filed the present Motion for Summary Judgment on November 13, 8 2023, ECF No. 17. Defendants did not respond, and appears to have abandoned the 9 case to the Court. 10 Facts 11 12 The following facts are from Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts, ECF 13 No. 18. These facts were not disputed by Plaintiff and are assumed as true. 14 This matter concerns Plaintiff’s arrest on March 18, 2022. Plaintiff alleges 15 he was wrongfully arrested in violation of state law and his federal constitutional 16 civil rights because he was only arrested on an outstanding warrant and that 17 warrant had been quashed. Plaintiff alleges he was booked into jail and released 18 approximately seven hours later. Plaintiff claims damages in the amount of his loss 19 of seven hours, towing expenses of $510.54, erroneous placement on the “Crime 20 Stoppers” public media forum, loss of his employment, and a bail cost of $1,600. 21 On March 18, 2022, Yakima County Sheriff’s Deputy Jared Hinze (“Deputy 22 Hinze”) stopped a vehicle for traveling 15 m.p.h. over the posted speed limit. 23 When contacted by law enforcement, the driver who was identified as Plaintiff, 24 acknowledged his speeding. Upon routine checks, Deputy Hinze discovered that 25 Plaintiff was driving with a suspended license and had an outstanding warrant. The 26 Yakima County Sheriff’s Office Dispatch confirmed the warrant and Deputy Hinze 27 arrested Plaintiff. 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART; REMANDING CASE # 2 1 Deputy Hinze authored a Declaration of Probable Cause and the Yakima 2 County Prosecutor’s Office and charged Plaintiff with second degree driving while 3 license suspended or revoked pursuant to RCW 46.20.342(1)(b). It was discovered 4 after Plaintiff’s arrest, that the pending arrest warrant was quashed and this was 5 unknown to Deputy Hinze at the time of arrest. Deputy Hinze was not involved in 6 Plaintiff’s prosecution or the Court’s subsequent decisions regarding bail. Sheriff 7 Udell was not involved in any aspect of Plaintiff’s arrest or subsequent filing of 8 criminal charges. 9 10 Legal Standard 11 Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no 12 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 13 matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). There is no genuine issue for trial unless 14 there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a 15 verdict in that party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 16 (1986). The moving party has the initial burden of showing the absence of a 17 genuine issue of fact for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). 18 If the moving party meets its initial burden, the non-moving party must go beyond 19 the pleadings and “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for 20 trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. 21 In addition to showing there are no questions of material fact, the moving 22 party must also show it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smith v. Univ. of 23 Wash. Law Sch., 233 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2000). The moving party is entitled 24 to judgment as a matter of law when the non-moving party fails to make a 25 sufficient showing on an essential element of a claim on which the non-moving 26 party has the burden of proof. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The non-moving party 27 cannot rely on conclusory allegations alone to create an issue of material fact. 28 Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993). ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART; REMANDING CASE # 3 1 When considering a motion for summary judgment, a court may neither 2 weigh the evidence nor assess credibility; instead, “the evidence of the non-movant 3 is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” 4 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. 5 Analysis 6 7 A government entity may not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, unless a 8 policy, practice, or custom of the entity can be shown to be a moving force behind 9 a violation of constitutional rights. Monell v. N.Y. City Dep. Of Soc. Svcs., 436 U.S. 10 658, 694 (1978). To establish liability for governmental entities under Monell, 11 Plaintiff must prove that: (1) [Plaintiff] had a constitutional right of which [they] 12 were deprived; (2) the municipality had a policy; (3) the policy amounts to 13 deliberate indifference to [Plaintiff’s] constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy 14 is the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. No. 15 40 Cnty. of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). 16 “Proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to 17 impose liability under Monell, unless proof of the incident includes “proof that it 18 was caused by an existing, unconstitutional municipal policy, which policy can be 19 attributed to a municipal policymaker.” City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 20 808, 824, 105 S. Ct. 2427, 2436, 85 L. Ed. 2d 791 (1985). In the absence of an 21 existing unconstitutional municipal policy, “considerably more proof than the 22 single incident will be necessary in every case to establish both the requisite fault 23 on the part of the municipality, and the causal connection between the “policy: and 24 the constitutional deprivation.” Id. 25 Here, this matter concerns a single incident and Plaintiff failed to identify a 26 policy or custom of Yakima County that caused his alleged constitutional 27 violation. 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART; REMANDING CASE # 4 For a Monell claim concerning a failure to train or supervise, Plaintiff must 1 2 establish failure to train or adequately supervise “amounting to deliberate 3 indifference to the rights of persons with whom the [untrained employees] come 4 into contact.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989). There must be 5 evidence that supports a widespread practice of the municipality that results in 6 repeated constitutional violations to show the required deliberate indifference. 7 Hunter v. Cnty. of Sacramento, 652 F.3d 1225, 1233 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, 8 Plaintiff failed to prove any widespread practice of a failure to train. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges causes of action to specific defendants in their 9 10 other allegations, but not in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allegations. It is unclear to the 11 Court who these allegations are against. The allegations are unclear and, by not 12 responding to this dispositive motion, Plaintiff has offered no clarity. 13 Consequently, all claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed with prejudice. 14 Plaintiff’s State Tort Claims are Remanded to State Court 15 The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 16 17 state-law tort claims of negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and 18 outrage. Plaintiff’s apparent abandonment of this case concerns the Court. Plaintiff 19 20 chose to bring this case in state court and Defendants did their due diligence in 21 removing the case to federal court and responding in earnest. This Court 22 encourages Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel to participate in this lawsuit. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART; REMANDING CASE # 5 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 17, is 3 GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. 4 2. Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants are 5 DISMISSED with prejudice. 6 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint is REMANDED to the Yakima County 7 Superior Court (former Yakima County Superior Court Case No. 23-2-00347-39). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter 9 this Order, provide copies to counsel, and close the file. 10 DATED this 25th day of January 2024. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART; REMANDING CASE # 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
