Corrigan v. Kron et al

Filing 32

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CHIEF JUSTICE MADSENS MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYINGPLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STAY. Defendant Chief Justice Madsens Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss ECF No. 19 is GRANTED, with prejudice. Plaintiffs Motion to Stay Proceedings ECF No. 27 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

JOHN L. CORRIGAN,
NO: 13-CV-0116-TOR
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

v.
WSP OFFICER TIMOTHY KRON,
WSP OFFICER CAMERON
IVERSON, CORRECTIONS
FACILITY SARGENT SCOTT
PONOZZO, GRANT COUNTY
DEPUTY PROSECUTOR DOUGLAS
R. MITCHELL, GRANT COUNTY,
AND CHIEF JUSTICE BARBARA
MADSEN,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
CHIEF JUSTICE MADSEN’S
MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY

Defendant.

16
17

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Chief Justice Madsen’s Rule 12(b)

18

Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19); and Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 27).

19

This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has

20

reviewed the briefing and the record and files herein, and is fully informed.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CHIEF JUSTICE MADSEN’S MOTION
TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY ~ 1

1

BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiff sued two Washington State Patrol Troopers, the Chief Justice of the

3

Washington State Supreme Court, Grant County, the Grant County prosecutor, and

4

a Corrections Facility Sergeant based on an incident arising out of a speeding

5

infraction. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges violations of his civil rights under 42

6

U.S.C. § 1983 against the officers for false imprisonment; false arrest; deprivation

7

of liberty without due process of law; excessive force; conspiracy; malicious

8

prosecution; failure to implement appropriate policies, customs and practices; and

9

against Chief Justice Madsen for being the chair or co-chair of the Board of

10

Judicial Administration which presumably adopted the Criminal Rules for Courts

11

of Limited Jurisdiction which demonstrate “deliberate indifference on the part of

12

policymakers to the constitutional rights of persons within the state of

13

Washington.” ECF No. 1 at 3, 10-11. Chief Justice Madsen seeks dismissal under

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (5). ECF No. 19 at 2. Plaintiff

15

moves to stay proceedings in light of the state’s re-filing of the criminal failure to

16

stop charges against him. ECF No. 29 at 1-2.

17

DISCUSSION

18

A. Defendant Chief Justice Madsen’s Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss

19

Plaintiff Corrigan names Chief Justice Madsen only in Count V of his

20

complaint. ECF No. 1 at 10. He alleges that the Chief Justice “co-chairs (or

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CHIEF JUSTICE MADSEN’S MOTION
TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY ~ 2

1

chairs) the state’s Board of Judicial Administration,” and presumably holds her

2

responsible for the Washington Criminal Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

3

(“CrRLJ”). Plaintiff Corrigan claims that the rules were “promulgated without too

4

much thought to the Fourth Amendment’s right to due process and the Fifth

5

Amendment’s right to a fair and impartial trial.” ECF No. 1 at 10. He argues that

6

the rules “demonstrate a deliberate indifference on the part of policymakers to the

7

constitutional rights of persons within the state of Washington and were the cause

8

of the violations of plaintiff’s rights alleged herein,” and seeks a declaratory

9

judgment against the Chief Justice. ECF No. 1 at 11. Chief Justice Madsen moves

10

to be dismissed from this action on grounds that (1) the Eleventh Amendment’s

11

prohibition of suits against state officials in federal court precludes subject matter

12

jurisdiction; (2) Plaintiff has no “case or controversy” as required under Article III;

13

and (3) the requested relief is improper under principles of comity and because

14

Corrigan has an adequate remedy at law. ECF No. 19 at 5.

15

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) addresses the Court’s subject

16

matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). When considering a Rule 12(b)(1)

17

motion challenging the substance of jurisdictional allegations, the Court may look

18

beyond the complaint. See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). The

19

burden of proof in a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is on the party asserting jurisdiction. See

20

Sopcak v. Northern Mountain Helicopter Serv., 52 F.3d 817, 818 (9th Cir. 1995).

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CHIEF JUSTICE MADSEN’S MOTION
TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY ~ 3

1

In ruling upon a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all factual allegations in the

2

complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the party

3

opposing the motion. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th

4

Cir. 2001). The court may disregard allegations that are contradicted by matters

5

properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit. Id. The court may also disregard

6

conclusory allegations and arguments which are not supported by reasonable

7

deductions and inferences. Id.

8

1. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

9

The United States Constitution’s Eleventh Amendment provides that “[t]he

10

judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in

11

law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by

12

citizens of another state….” “The Eleventh Amendment erects a general bar

13

against federal lawsuits brought against a state.” Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483,

14

491 (9th Cir. 2003). This bar includes “a state, an ‘arm of the state,’ its

15

instrumentalities, or its agencies.” Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th

16

Cir. 1995) (concluding that a municipal court is an arm of the state protected by

17

Eleventh Amendment immunity); see also Greater Los Angeles Council on

18

Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding that a Superior

19

Court of California was an arm of the state). Eleventh Amendment immunity

20

applies to suits brought against state officials, because “a suit against a state

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CHIEF JUSTICE MADSEN’S MOTION
TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY ~ 4

1

official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a

2

suit against the official’s office,” and as such is “no different from a suit against

3

the state itself.” Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).

4

The Eleventh Amendment also bars 18 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claims against

5

the state. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 338 (1979); Will, 491 U.S. at 67. It

6

precludes suits seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. Pennhurst State Sch. &

7

Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). Eleventh Amendment immunity

8

can be waived. Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 98. Washington, however, has not made

9

such a waiver. Edgar v. State, 92 Wash.2d 217 (1979).

10

There is an exception for claims asserted against a state official in her

11

official capacity for prospective injunctive relief under Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S.

12

123 (1908). The relief requested must be prospective, to address a “continuing

13

violation of federal law.” Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 73

14

(1996). Furthermore, the state officer sued must have some “fairly direct”

15

connection to the allegedly unconstitutional act; “a generalized duty to enforce

16

state law or general supervisory power over the persons responsible for enforcing

17

the challenged provision will not subject an official to suit.” Los Angeles County

18

Bar Ass’n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 704 (1992).

19
20

Mr. Corrigan responds to Chief Justice Madsen’s motion by arguing that
case law supports the federal courts’ ability to entertain declaratory judgment suits

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CHIEF JUSTICE MADSEN’S MOTION
TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY ~ 5

1

against a state official despite the Eleventh Amendment, citing Verizon Md. Inc. v.

2

Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635 (2002). ECF No. 21. However,

3

Verizon restates the rule above: “In determining whether the Ex parte Young

4

doctrine avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, a court need only conduct a

5

‘straightforward inquiry’ into whether the complaint alleges an ongoing violation

6

of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.” Verizon,

7

535 U.S. at 637 (finding that “Verizon’s prayer for an injunctive relief—that state

8

officials be restrained from enforcing an order in contravention of controlling

9

federal law—clearly satisfies our ‘straightforward inquiry.’”). The Court must still

10

examine Plaintiff’s claim and determine if it alleges an ongoing violation of federal

11

law and seeks prospective relief.1

12

Plaintiff also argued that declaratory relief is appropriate under Steffel v.

13

Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974). Steffel stands for the proposition that federal

14

declaratory relief is not precluded when a prosecution based on an allegedly

15

unconstitutional state statute has been threatened, but is not pending. Id. at 485.

16
1

17

The Court notes that Chief Justice Madsen argues that the Plaintiff’s complaint

18

does not seek prospective relief. ECF No. 19 at 8-9. While this is true, the

19

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay, which was filed after the Chief Justice’s motion, notes

20

that the charges against him have been re-filed in Grant County. ECF No. 27 at 2.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CHIEF JUSTICE MADSEN’S MOTION
TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY ~ 6

1

However, Steffel does not remove the requirement that the Plaintiff must allege

2

facts supporting a justiciable claim. See Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 316 (1991).

3

Here, Plaintiff has failed to make more than a conclusory allegation that the

4

CrRLJ violate federal law; he simply states that the rules “exhibit a deliberate

5

indifference to the constitutional rights of persons in Grant County of due process

6

and a fair and impartial trial,” that “discovery is inadequately and improperly

7

limited,” and that “appeals are inadequately reviewed.” ECF No. 1 at 11. His

8

complaint provides no supporting exhibit, example, or analysis explaining how

9

they violate the Constitution or federal law, or how they are inadequate. His

10

memorandum responding to Chief Justice Madsen’s motion lists “unconstitutional

11

state statutes” as including those relating to “unmarked police vehicles,” “speeding

12

determinations using SMDS,” “restrictive discovery under Washington State’s

13

Criminal Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction,” “Prompt determination of

14

probable cause for warrantless arrests,” and “proper access to Bills of Particulars.”

15

ECF No. 21 at 3. However, the memorandum likewise includes no particulars as

16

to how these rules are unconstitutional. Under Sprewell, the Court may “disregard

17

conclusory allegations and arguments which are not supported by reasonable

18

deductions and inferences.” 266 F.3d at 988. The Court can make no reasonable

19

deductions from Plaintiff’s statements with which to infer that the rules are

20

unconstitutional.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CHIEF JUSTICE MADSEN’S MOTION
TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY ~ 7

1

Nor has the Plaintiff alleged a “fairly direct” connection between the Chief

2

Justice and the injury he claims are due to the unconstitutional rules. As

3

Defendants point out, the only connection Plaintiff has made is that the Chief

4

Justice is a member of the state judicial committee that considers and enacts rules

5

of criminal procedure. ECF No. 1 at 9. Such involvement should not subject her

6

to liability for a lawsuit that arose out of laws with which she had no

7

involvement—the state motor vehicle laws.

8

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged no ongoing violation

9

of federal law nor a direct connection between the Chief Justice and his injury to

10

qualify under the Ex Parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

11

2. Plaintiff’s Standing and Propriety of Relief Requested

12

Having decided that Chief Justice Madsen enjoys Eleventh Amendment

13

immunity, the Court declines to consider all the other reasons she should be

14

dismissed from this lawsuit as well.

15
16

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings
Plaintiff contends that the case should be stayed in light of the fact that the

17

State has re-filed criminal charges against him. ECF No. 27 at 2. These charges,

18

for failing to obey a law enforcement officer, were originally overturned on appeal

19

and dismissed without prejudice. Id. Plaintiff contends that relitigation of the

20

original criminal charge means that his federal claims may be subject to summary

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CHIEF JUSTICE MADSEN’S MOTION
TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY ~ 8

1

dismissal under the doctrine stated in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

2

ECF No. 27 at 2. Defendants maintain that the re-filed charges have no bearing on

3

the Court’s determination of whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

4

and dismissal. ECF No. 29 at 2.

5

“The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings

6

pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.” Keating v. Office of Thrift

7

Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995). “In the absence of substantial

8

prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, simultaneous parallel civil and

9

criminal proceedings are unobjectionable.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). It is

10

within the discretion of the Court to stay civil proceedings when the interest of

11

justice requires it. Id. While “courts must seek to accommodate the defendant's

12

right against self-incrimination in a civil [] proceeding,” courts should “explore all

13

possible measures in order to ‘select that means which strikes a fair balance ... and

14

... accommodates both parties.’” United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency,

15

672 F.3d 629, 643 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
As the Defendants argue, while the Heck2 doctrine may eventually preclude

16
17

Plaintiff’s civil lawsuit, the Defendants need not wait to seek dismissal for the

18

2

Under Heck, “in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional

19

conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose

20

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CHIEF JUSTICE MADSEN’S MOTION
TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY ~ 9

1

conclusion of the plaintiff’s re-filed criminal charges. The Court has stayed

2

discovery so that the defendants may obtain a ruling on the applicability of

3

“qualified or absolute immunity.” ECF No. 25 at 4. The Supreme Court has

4

“repeatedly . . . stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the

5

earliest possible stage in litigation.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232

6

(2009). Nor has Plaintiff asserted any Fifth Amendment concerns with defending

7

his criminal charge while moving forward with his civil complaint. Accordingly,

8

the Court finds no cause to grant Plaintiff’s motion to stay.

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

10

1. Defendant Chief Justice Madsen’s Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss (ECF

11

No. 19) is GRANTED, with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall

12

TERMINATE Chief Justice Madsen from the caption of this case.

13

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 27) is DENIED.

14
15
16
17

prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged

18

by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a

19

determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of

20

habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CHIEF JUSTICE MADSEN’S MOTION
TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY ~ 10

1
2
3

The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order and
provide copies to counsel.
DATED September 27, 2013.

4
5

THOMAS O. RICE
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CHIEF JUSTICE MADSEN’S MOTION
TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY ~ 11