Hazelquist v. City of Ritzville et al

Filing 86

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Defendants Washington State Patrol and Dustin Stephans Motion and Memorandum for Summary Judgment ECF No. 60 is GRANTED. Defendants Washington State Patrol and Stephan are dismissed. Defendant Pat Hulls Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 66 is GRANTED. Defendant Hull is dismissed. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

HEIDI HAZELQUIST,
NO: 2:14-CV-0073-TOR
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10
11

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

OFFICER STEPHAN, 1 OFFICER
KLEWIN, PAT HULL, and
WASHINGTON STATE PATROL,
Defendants.

12
13
14

BEFORE THE COURT are Defendants Washington State Patrol and Dustin

15

Stephan’s Motion and Memorandum for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 60) and

16

Defendant Pat Hull’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 66). These matters

17

were submitted for consideration without oral argument. Richard D. Wall

18
1

19
20

The Clerk of Court shall modify the docket to reflect the correct spelling of

Officer Stephan’s name.

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 1

1

represents Plaintiff. Carl P. Warring represents Defendants Washington State

2

Patrol and Dustin Stephan. Paul L. Kirkpatrick and Timothy J. Nault represent

3

Defendant Patricia Hull. The Court has reviewed the briefing and the record and

4

files herein, and is fully informed.

5

BACKGROUND

6

Plaintiff, initially proceeding pro se, filed her Complaint in this action on

7

March 28, 2014.2 Plaintiff asserts that, after a traffic stop, she was unlawfully

8

arrested and involuntarily committed to a mental health facility. ECF No. 9. This

9

Court construes Plaintiff as alleging state law claims for defamation, malicious

10

prosecution, assault, and false imprisonment, as well as federal claims under 42

11

U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and involuntary commitment. In the instant motions,

12

certain Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims. 3 ECF Nos. 60, 66.

13

For the reasons discussed below, this Court grants these motions.

14

///

15

///

16

2

17

which motions this Court has granted, Plaintiff has either withdrawn her motions

18

or failed to file an amended complaint. See ECF Nos. 17, 20, 21, 23, 44, 45.

19

3

20

otherwise joined the moving Defendants’ motions.

Although Plaintiff has repeatedly moved for leave to file an amended complaint,

Defendant Officer Klewin has not filed his own motion for summary judgment or

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 2

FACTS 4

1
2

On September 5, 2011, Defendant Stephan stopped Plaintiff Heidi

3

Hazelquist at the east bound I-90 on ramp near Ritzville, Washington. ECF Nos.

4

61 at 7; 75 at 1-2; 77 at 2; 82 at 2. According to Defendant Stephan’s Patrol

5

Report, he observed Plaintiff using her cell phone while operating a motor vehicle,

6

driving her vehicle into the oncoming lane of traffic, and driving her vehicle from

7

the right lane of the freeway to the middle lane without use of her turn signal. ECF

8

No. 61 at 7. Plaintiff admits that she “swerved” while entering the freeway,

9

attributing her behavior to a cup of spilled coffee. ECF Nos. 3 at 2; 82 at 2.

10

When Defendant Stephan made contact with Plaintiff, he noticed she spoke

11

with slurred speech. ECF Nos. 61 at 7; 75 at 2. Plaintiff indicated that she

12

suffered from a disability, which adversely affected her speech and balance. ECF

13

Nos. 61 at 7; 77 at 1-2; 82 at 1-2. Plaintiff contends she tried to show her disability

14

card to Defendant Stephan but he refused to look at it, ECF No. 82 at 3; Defendant

15

Stephan asserts that Plaintiff was unable to produce any documentation of her

16
17

4

18

statement in a complaint may serve as a judicial admission unless the party

19

explains the error in a subsequent pleading or by amendment. Sicor Ltd. v. Cetus

20

Corp., 51 F.3d 848, 859 (9th Cir. 1995).

The following are the undisputed material facts unless otherwise noted. A

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 3

1

condition, ECF Nos. 61 at 7 (noting that the disability card Plaintiff presented did

2

not list her disabilities); 75 at 2.

3

Defendant Stephan asked Plaintiff to step out of her car. ECF Nos. 61 at 7;

4

75 at 2; 77 at 2; 82 at 2. According to his Patrol Report, Defendant Stephan

5

observed that Plaintiff “staggered and swayed crossing her feet and was unable to

6

walk in a straight line.” ECF No. 61 at 7. Defendant Stephan asked Plaintiff if she

7

would be willing to perform field sobriety tests, which request she declined in light

8

of her coordination issues. ECF No. 61 at 7, 26; see ECF No. 82 (failing to

9

dispute).

10

Defendant Stephan ultimately arrested Plaintiff for driving under the

11

influence of drugs. ECF Nos. 61 at 8, 14, 17; 75 at 3; 82 at 2. Once in the patrol

12

vehicle, Plaintiff consented to a portable breath test, which registered a reading of

13

.000. ECF Nos. 61 at 8; 75 at 3; 77 at 2; 82 at 2. Defendant Stephan then

14

transported Plaintiff to a local hospital for a blood draw, which test similarly

15

showed no intoxicants in Plaintiff’s system. ECF Nos. 75 at 4; 77 at 2. Plaintiff

16

was subsequently released from custody and transported to a nearby hotel. ECF

17

Nos. 61 at 8-9; 75 at 4; 77 at 2; 82 at 3.

18

Approximately one hour later, Defendant Stephan received a report that a

19

woman matching Plaintiff’s description was located on an I-90 overpass. ECF

20

Nos. 61 at 9; 75 at 4. Defendant Stephan and Trooper Herrington again made

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 4

1

contact with Plaintiff, observing her leaning over the concrete barrier. ECF Nos.

2

61 at 9; 75 at 4. According to his Patrol Report, Defendant Stephan thought

3

Plaintiff may have been contemplating suicide and had allegedly been informed by

4

Trooper Herrington that Plaintiff said she was going to jump in front of a semi-

5

truck. ECF No. 61 at 9, 14. Plaintiff adamantly denies that she ever intended to

6

jump or said anything to that effect; however, her pleadings appear to concede that

7

she presented herself as someone that was contemplating jumping. ECF Nos. 77 at

8

3,5; 82 at 3; see ECF Nos. 9 at 3 (“I knew if I stood on the over pass, eventually

9

the police would come to prevent a person from jumping. They will help me direct

10

[Trooper Stephan’s] actions to internal affairs.”); 10 at 18 (“[I] knew [I] would be

11

there a while because if [I] stood on the over pass eventually [I] thought the police

12

would come to prevent a person from jumping.”). Indeed, in her Complaint,

13

Plaintiff asserts she told the arriving officers that she was “not going to jump off”

14

the overpass. ECF No. 9 at 3.

15

Trooper Herrington transported Plaintiff to East Adams Rural Hospital for

16

mental health evaluation. 5 ECF Nos. 61 at 9, 14; 75 at 5; 77 at 3. Defendant

17

Patricia Hull, a Designated Mental Health Professional with Adams County, had

18

5

19

the Adams County jail but was advised that Plaintiff needed to first be medically

20

cleared. ECF No. 61 at 4.

According to her report, Trooper Herrington first attempted to book Plaintiff in

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 5

1

received a request from law enforcement to evaluate Plaintiff. ECF No. 65-5 at 2-

2

3. Defendant Hull asserts that Washington State Patrol (“WSP”) informed her that

3

Plaintiff was contemplating suicide. ECF Nos. 65 at 3; 65-3 at 3 (“DMHP Hull

4

was requested for face to face evaluation of [Plaintiff] . . . after being found on

5

Highway overpass determining best way to commit suicide.”).

6

Defendant Hull interviewed Plaintiff, describing Plaintiff as “agitated and

7

angry” and “uncooperative.” ECF No. 65 at 3. In the course of her investigation,

8

Defendant Hull learned that Plaintiff had suffered a traumatic brain injury in 1997,

9

which left her with right side impairment, slurred speech, and poor coordination.

10

Id. at 4. Defendant Hull reported that Plaintiff confessed to difficulty sleeping,

11

past contemplations of suicide, and many stressors in her life. Id. Defendant Hull

12

also maintains that Plaintiff acknowledged her suicidal thoughts while standing on

13

the overpass. Id. Plaintiff adamantly denies having any suicidal thoughts or

14

confessing to such thoughts to Defendant Hull. ECF No. 77 at 4. The parties

15

dispute whether Defendant Hull ever spoke with Plaintiff about developing a crisis

16

plan. ECF Nos. 65 at 5; 77 at 3, 6.

17

Dr. Betty Mitchell, an emergency room physician, also examined Plaintiff

18

while she was at the hospital and similarly represents that Plaintiff was

19

contemplating suicide. ECF No. 65-4 at 6 (“Patient stated that she was at the

20

overpass/bridge contemplating/considering jumping in front of a truck to ‘end it

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 6

1

all.’ Then she decided that a truck was too ‘messy’ and not fair to truck driver so

2

then she mentioned sitting in front of a train instead. She stated several times that

3

she has seen the world and is ‘ready to go.’”). 6 In her Complaint, Plaintiff

4

contends that Dr. Mitchell “misstates the words and meaning of the talk;” however,

5

she also concedes that she “elaborated on all the heavy issues [she] had lately.”

6

ECF No. 9 at 4-5. Defendant Hull took the observations of Dr. Mitchell into

7

consideration when determining whether to commit Plaintiff. ECF No. 65-6 at 6.7

8

6

9

statements are non-hearsay. First, any statements made by Plaintiff are admissible

Plaintiff objects to these statements as inadmissible hearsay. However, these

10

as admissions by a party opponent. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). Second, Dr.

11

Mitchell’s written statements are not presented to prove the truth of the matter

12

asserted but instead are used to show the effect of these statements on Defendant

13

Hull and her ultimate decision to commit. See id. at 801(c); United States v.

14

Payne, 944 F.2d 1458, 1472 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that out-of-court

15

statements introduced to show the effect on the listener, rather than to prove the

16

truth of the matter asserted, are non-hearsay statements).

17

7

18

and thrown to the ground by a uniformed officer who had come into the waiting

19

room,” handcuffed, and attached to a gurney against her will. ECF No. 77 at 4. In

20

response, Defendant Hull explains that it was necessary to call in law enforcement

At some point during her hospital stay, Plaintiff asserts that she was “attacked

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 7

1

Based on Defendant Hull’s interview and independent investigation, as well

2

as Dr. Mitchell’s documented observations, Defendant Hull formed the provisional

3

diagnosis that Plaintiff suffered from major depression, recurrent, unspecified.

4

ECF No. 65 at 6. Defendant Hull recommended that Plaintiff be taken into

5

emergency custody in an evaluation and treatment facility for a period not to

6

exceed seventy-two hours pursuant to RCW 71.05. Id. Plaintiff was subsequently

7

transferred to Lourdes Counseling Center in Richland, Washington. ECF Nos. 65-

8

5 at 8; 77 at 4. In her Petition for Initial Detention, filed September 6, 2011, with

9

Adams County Superior Court, Defendant Hull stated the following facts in

10

support of her conclusion that Plaintiff presented a serious likelihood of harm to

11

herself:

12

16

[Plaintiff’s] story is inconsistent and contradictory. [She] claimed to
have left the motel in search of ‘Rockstar drink’ but was found in
opposite direction of motel past the places to purchase drinks. She
states she was at the overpass evaluating best place & method to
commit suicide. ‘I don’t want to land on a truck, I want to land in
front of the truck.’ While respondent reports she [was] willing to
develop a safety plan she is refusing to engage in the process such as
notifying family developing a support system. [Plaintiff] has
attempted to leave the hospital & required restraints.

17

to restrain Plaintiff as she attempted to leave. ECF Nos. 65 at 6; 65-3 at 28 (“[I]t

18

was necessary to request a police officer to stand by, [Plaintiff] still attempted to

19

leave and the officer used handcuffs to restrain her. When the officer needed to

20

leave the hospital, the doctor ordered restraints.”).

13
14
15

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 8

1

ECF No. 69-4 at 2.

2

On March 28, 2014, Ms. Hazelquist filed the instant lawsuit. In her briefing,

3

Plaintiff has conceded that several of her claims are barred. 8 This Court considers

4

the following claims: (1) a section 1983 claim against Defendant Stephan for

5

unlawful seizure; (2) a section 1983 claim against Defendant Hull for involuntary

6

confinement; and (3) state law claims against Defendants WSP, Stephan, and Hull

7

for malicious prosecution. ECF No. 9.

8

DISCUSSION

9

Summary judgment may be granted to a moving party who demonstrates

10

“that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled

11

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the

12

initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issues of material fact.

13

8

14

assault, and false imprisonment; however, as Plaintiff has conceded in her briefing,

15

these claims are barred by Washington’s two-year statute of limitations. ECF Nos.

16

83 at 1; 76 at 1; see RCW 4.16.100(1); Unisys Corp. v. Senn, 99 Wash.App. 391,

17

397-98 (2000). Plaintiff further concedes that her claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983 against WSP are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. ECF No. 83 at 1; see

19

U.S. Const. Amend. XI; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996);

20

Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63-64 (1989).

Plaintiff’s Complaint can be construed to allege state law claims for defamation,

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 9

1

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the

2

non-moving party to identify specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of

3

material fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986).

4

“The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position

5

will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the [trier-of-fact] could

6

reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Id. at 252.

7

For purposes of summary judgment, a fact is “material” if it might affect the

8

outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. at 248. A dispute concerning any

9

such fact is “genuine” only where the evidence is such that the trier-of-fact could

10

find in favor of the non-moving party. Id. “[A] party opposing a properly

11

supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or

12

denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a

13

genuine issue for trial.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also First Nat’l

14

Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968) (holding that a party

15

is only entitled to proceed to trial if it presents sufficient, probative evidence

16

supporting the claimed factual dispute, rather than resting on mere allegations).

17

Moreover, “[c]onclusory, speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is

18

insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat summary judgment.”

19

Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). In ruling

20

upon a summary judgment motion, a court must construe the facts, as well as all

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 10

1

rational inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,

2

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007), and only evidence which would be

3

admissible at trial may be considered, Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764,

4

773 (9th Cir. 2002).

5

A. Section 1983 Claims

6

Based on this Court’s reading of Plaintiff’s Complaint, this Court discerns

7

two causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: unlawful seizure under the Fourth

8

Amendment against Defendant Stephan 9 and involuntary commitment under the

9
10

9

11

been settled that the Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official

12

confronted by a claim that he deprived another of a federal right under the color of

13

state law.” Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30 (1991) ((quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes,

14

416 U.S. 232, 237 (1974)). “That is, the Eleventh Amendment does not erect a

15

barrier against suits to impose ‘individual and personal liability’ on state officials

16

under § 1983.” Id. at 30-31 (quoting Scheuer, 416 U.S. at 238). Defendant

17

Stephan is not sued in his official capacity and is thus properly subject to a section

18

1983 personal-capacity suit. See id. at 26 (“[T]he phrase ‘acting in their official

19

capacities’ is best understood as a reference to the capacity in which the state

20

officer is sued, not the capacity in which the officer inflicts the alleged injury.”).

Despite Defendant Stephan’s invocation of the Eleventh Amendment, “it has

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 11

1

Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Hull. 10 See ECF No. 9. A cause of

2

action pursuant to section 1983 may be maintained “against any person acting

3

under color of law who deprives another ‘of any rights, privileges, or immunities

4

secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” S. Cal. Gas Co. v.

5

City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 887 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

6

The rights guaranteed by section 1983 are “liberally and beneficently construed.”

7

Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439, 443 (1991) (quoting Monell v. N.Y. City Dep’t of

8

Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 684 (1978)).

9

1. Unlawful Seizure

10

The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in

11

their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and

12

seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “A claim for unlawful arrest is cognizable

13

under § 1983 as a violation of the Fourth Amendment provided the arrest was

14

without probable cause or other justification.” Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d

15

896, 918 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (quoting Dubner v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 266

16

10

17

1983, she has “not alleged that any process resulting in the initiation of criminal

18

proceedings followed [her] arrest” and she cannot “simply recast the false arrest

19

claim as a claim for malicious prosecution.” See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693

20

F.3d 918, 920 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

To the extent Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim is brought under section

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 12

1

F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2001)). “Probable cause exists when, under the totality of

2

the circumstances known to the arresting officers, a prudent person would have

3

concluded that there was a fair probability that a crime was committed.” Gasho v.

4

United States, 39 F.3d 1420, 1428 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks

5

omitted).

6

This Court finds there can be no genuine dispute that Defendant Stephan had

7

probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for driving under the influence in violation of

8

Washington state law. Under Washington law, a person may not operate a motor

9

vehicle while under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor, marijuana,

10

or any other drug. RCW 46.61.502(1)(c). At the time of Plaintiff’s arrest, the

11

following facts and circumstances were within Defendant Stephan’s knowledge:

12

(1) Plaintiff drove into the oncoming traffic lane and “swerved” across the freeway

13

lanes without use of a turn signal; (2) when Defendant Stephan made contact with

14

Plaintiff, Plaintiff exhibited slurred speech and the inability to maintain balance

15

and walk in a straight line; and (3) before arrest, Plaintiff refused to complete field

16

sobriety tests. Plaintiff does not dispute that she “swerved” while driving on the

17

freeway, that Defendant Stephan pulled her over shortly thereafter, and that she

18

exhibited slurred speech and impaired coordination. Although Plaintiff’s breath

19

and blood tests, post-arrest, demonstrated that Plaintiff was not in fact under the

20

influence of any intoxicant, this after-the-fact determination does not diminish the

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 13

1

probable cause that existed at the time of arrest. Accordingly, because Defendant

2

Stephan had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff based on the undisputed facts, this

3

Court grants summary judgment to Defendant Stephan on this claim.

4
5

2. Involuntary Commitment
“Courts repeatedly have echoed the Supreme Court’s admonition that

6

involuntary civil commitment to a mental hospital represents a ‘massive

7

curtailment of liberty’ and that such a commitment therefore most comport with

8

the requirements of due process.” Jensen v. Lane Cnty., 312 F.3d 1145, 1146 (9th

9

Cir. 2002) (citing Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491-92 (1980)). “In general, due

10

process precludes the involuntary hospitalization of a person who is not both

11

mentally ill and a danger to one’s self or to others.” Id. at 1147 (citing O’Connor

12

v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 575 (1975)).

13

Defendant Hull is entitled to a qualified immunity analysis on this claim.

14

Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil damages unless their

15

conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

16

reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231

17

(2009). “Qualified immunity balances two important interests––the need to hold

18

public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need

19

to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform

20

their duties reasonably.” Id.

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 14

1

In evaluating a state actor’s assertion of qualified immunity, a court must

2

determine (1) whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,

3

show that the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether

4

the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that a

5

reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have understood that his

6

actions violated that right. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), overruled in

7

part by Pearson, 555 U.S. 223. To determine whether a right is “clearly

8

established,” courts consider the following:

9

[The contours of the right] must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable
official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.
This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified
immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held
unlawful; but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the
unlawfulness must be apparent.

10
11
12
13

Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (internal citations omitted). A court

14

may, within its discretion, decide which of the two prongs should be addressed first

15

in light of the particular circumstances of the case. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. If

16

the answer to either inquiry is “no,” then the defendant is entitled to qualified

17

immunity and may not be held personally liable for his or her conduct. Glenn v.

18

Wash. Cnty., 673 F.3d 864, 870 (9th Cir. 2011).11

19

11

20

summary judgment stage in the context of qualified immunity, “determinations that

When determining whether there are any genuine issues of material fact at the

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 15

1

For purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion

2

in Jensen v. Lane County constitutes clearly established law. In Jensen, the Ninth

3

Circuit addressed what level of certainty due process requires in the context of an

4

involuntary, short-term emergency commitment: “In the context of a short-term

5

emergency hold . . . by definition there is no prior adjudication of the detainee’s

6

condition, because the very purpose of the hold is to evaluate whether the person is

7

mentally ill and dangerous and thus should be subjected to such an adjudication.”

8

312 F.3d at 1147. Nonetheless, “due process does demand that the decision to

9

order an involuntary emergency commitment be made in accordance with a

10

standard that promises some reasonable degree of accuracy.” Id. To comport with

11

due process, mental health professionals must exercise judgment “on the basis of

12

substantive and procedural criteria that are not substantially below the standards

13
14

turn on questions of law, such as whether the officers had probable cause or

15

reasonable suspicion to support their actions, are appropriately decided by the

16

court.” Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752, 763 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Act

17

Up!/Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 873 (9th Cir. 1993)). “However, a trial

18

court should not grant summary judgment when there is a genuine dispute as to the

19

‘facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge’ or ‘what the officer and

20

claimant did or failed to do.’” Id.

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 16

1

generally accepted in the medical community.” Id. (quoting Rodriguez v. City of

2

N.Y., 72 F.3d 1051, 1063 (2d Cir. 1995)).

3

Washington’s involuntary commitment statutory scheme, which has been

4

held to be facially sufficient to meet the requirements of due process and under

5

which Plaintiff was detained, see In re Detention of June Johnson, 179 Wash.App.

6

579, 591 (2014), provides for the following process regarding involuntary

7

emergency commitment:

8

When a designated mental health professional receives information
alleging that a person, as the result of a mental disorder, presents an
imminent likelihood of serious harm, 12 or is in imminent danger
because of being gravely disabled, after investigation and evaluation
of the specific facts alleged and of the reliability and credibility of the
person or persons providing the information if any, the designated
mental health professional may take such person, or cause by oral or
written order such person to be taken into emergency custody in an
evaluation and treatment facility for not more than seventy-two hours
as described in RCW 71.05.180.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

12

17

risk . . . that [p]hysical harm will be inflicted by a person upon his or her own

18

person, as evidenced by threats or attempts to commit suicide or inflict physical

19

harm on oneself.” “Imminent” is when harm can “occur at any moment or near at

20

hand.” RCW 71.05.020(20).

RCW 71.05.020(25) defines “likelihood of serious harm” as a “substantial

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 17

1

RCW 71.05.153(1).13 The mental health professional must examine the person

2

within three hours of arrival at the mental health facility; a determination of

3

whether the person meets emergency detention criteria must be made within twelve

4

hours. RCW 71.05.153(4). In conducting an evaluation under RCW 71.05.153, a

5

mental health professional “must consult with any examining emergency physician

6

regarding the physician’s observations and opinions related to the person’s

7

condition, and whether, in view of the physician, detention is appropriate;” “take

8

serious consideration of observations and opinions by examining emergency room

9

physicians in determining whether detention . . . is appropriate;” and document

10

such consultation. RCW 71.05.154. Further, the mental health professional must,

11

on the judicial day following detention, file a petition for initial detention along

12

with other required filings. RCW 71.05.160.

13

Whether or not Defendant Hull violated Plaintiff’s due process rights when

14

she made the decision to detain Plaintiff, Defendant Hull is entitled to qualified

15

immunity. In light of the undisputed facts, no reasonable official in the shoes of

16

Defendant Hull would have known her decision to detain violated Plaintiff’s

17

clearly established due process rights under Jensen.

18
19

13

20

involuntary commitment statute.

Plaintiff does not challenge the constitutional sufficiency of Washington’s

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 18

1

First, both the Washington State Patrol and Dr. Mitchell informed Defendant

2

Hull that Plaintiff presented a suicide risk and thus an imminent likelihood of

3

serious harm to herself. See RCW 71.05.020(20), (25). Although Plaintiff

4

adamantly denies that she was attempting to commit suicide or that she ever said

5

anything to this effect, she does not dispute that this information was relayed to

6

Defendant Hull. Further, Plaintiff concedes that her position on the I-90 overpass

7

gave the appearance of someone who was going to jump—indeed, the first

8

comment she made to the officers was that she was not going to jump—and she

9

further admits that, during her examination with Dr. Mitchell, she “elaborated on

10

all the heavy issues” with which she had been dealing. Second, Defendant Hull

11

personally interviewed Plaintiff and conducted an independent investigation into

12

Plaintiff’s mental health history, contacting other health agencies in Montana and

13

Washington in an attempt to gain diagnostic information regarding Plaintiff’s

14

condition. Third, Defendant Hull consulted with Dr. Mitchell, an examining

15

physician, to help form her provisional diagnosis and ultimately determine

16

detention was appropriate. Finally, Defendant Hull promptly filed a petition for

17

detention with the appropriate court following Plaintiff’s transfer to Lourdes.

18

Plaintiff’s opposition misses the mark. Plaintiff’s declaration—the only

19

evidence presented to support Plaintiff’s position—fails to present a genuine

20

dispute as to whether Defendant Hull’s decision violated clearly established law.

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 19

1

Although Plaintiff unyieldingly asserts that she never told anyone she was

2

contemplating suicide, her declaration fails to create a genuine dispute as to

3

whether she presented herself as someone who may pose an imminent and serious

4

risk of harm to herself and thus may need further mental health treatment. Indeed,

5

Plaintiff admits she presented herself in this way to get the attention of the police.

6

See e.g., ECF Nos. 9 at 3 (“I knew if I stood on the over pass, eventually the police

7

would come to prevent a person from jumping.”). No trier-of-fact, based on the

8

evidence presented, could find otherwise. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

9

477 U.S. at 248 (explaining that a dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if the

10

evidence is such that a trier-of-fact could return a verdict for the nonmoving party).

11

Thus, because no reasonable official in the shoes of Defendant Hull would

12

have known her decision to detain Plaintiff violated Plaintiff’s due process rights.

13

Defendant Hull is entitled to qualified immunity, and summary judgment on this

14

claim is appropriate.

15

B. State Law Claim for Malicious Prosecution

16

Before commencing suit against a government entity in Washington, a

17

plaintiff is required to file a standard tort claim notice with the appropriate entity.

18

For suing a local governmental entity, a party must file a claim for damages with

19

the entity before commencing a tort action. RCW 4.96.020. This provision applies

20

to claims against the local entity itself, as well as its officers, employees, or

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 20

1

volunteers. RCW 4.96.020(1). RCW 4.96.020 sets forth the minimum information

2

a standard tort claim form must contain. Similarly, for suing a state entity, a party

3

must file a claim for damages with the risk management division before

4

commencing a tort action against the state or any state officer, employee, or

5

volunteer. RCW 4.92.110. Under both provisions, the plaintiff must then wait

6

sixty calendar days before commencing suit. RCW 4.92.110, 4.96.020(4). “The

7

purpose of claim filing statutes is to ‘allow government entities time to investigate,

8

evaluate, and settle claims.” Lee v. Metro. Parks Tacoma, 183 Wash. App. 961,

9

968 (2014). Substantial compliance with the relevant claim filing statute—

10

meaning that the “statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent

11

for which the statute was adopted”—is sufficient. Id. at 967-68. However, failure

12

to comply with the statute is grounds for dismissal. Mercer v. State, 48 Wash.App.

13

496, 498 (1987) (“The procedures of this statute are mandatory, and compliance is

14

a condition precedent to recovery.”).

15

Here, Defendants allege that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate substantial

16

compliance with the relevant statutory provisions for suing local and state

17

governmental entities. In response, Plaintiff has not presented any evidence

18

showing that she substantially complied with these statutes. The only evidence

19

showing any compliance is a standard tort claim notice form, attached to Plaintiff’s

20

Complaint, which Plaintiff drafted against the state of Washington, ECF No. 9 at

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 21

1

11; however, there is no evidence to show that this form was ever filed with the

2

proper agency. Regarding her remaining state claim against Defendant Hull,

3

Plaintiff has presented no evidence of filing a standard tort claims notice form with

4

Adams County, Defendant Hull’s employer. 14 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s remaining

5

claim for malicious prosecution, to the extent it is alleged against Defendant Hull

6

or Defendant Stephan, is dismissed because of her lack of compliance with

7

Washington’s claim filing statutes.15

8

14

9

ECF No. 76 at 1. However, her Complaint does not allege any facts to support

10

such a cause of action. Even if her Complaint can be construed to have alleged

11

such a cause of action, Plaintiff’s failure to present any evidence of filing a

12

standard tort claims notice form would prove equally fatal to a claim for

13

negligence. Moreover, Defendant Hull, a mental health professional, would be

14

immune from such a claim so long as she performed her duty “in good faith and

15

without gross negligence.” RCW 71.05.120; Estate of Davis v. State Dep’t of

16

Corrections, 127 Wash. App. 833, 840 (2005). Plaintiff has put forth no argument

17

that Hull acted in bad faith or with gross negligence.

18

15

19

substantially complied with the statute’s content requirements, any malicious

20

prosecution claim against Defendant Stephan is properly dismissed considering (1)

In her briefing, Plaintiff asserts that she also has a state law claim for negligence.

Alternatively, even assuming Plaintiff’s form was filed with the State and

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 22

1
2

IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendants Washington State Patrol and Dustin Stephan’s Motion and

3

Memorandum for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 60) is GRANTED. Defendants

4

Washington State Patrol and Stephan are dismissed.

5
6

2. Defendant Pat Hull’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 66) is
GRANTED. Defendant Hull is dismissed.

7

The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, provide copies

8

to counsel, and TERMINATE Defendants Washington State Patrol, Stephan,

9

and Hull from the caption.

10

DATED June 19, 2015.

11
12

THOMAS O. RICE
United States District Judge

13
14
15

no suit, civil or criminal, has been initiated against Plaintiff, and (2) Defendant

16

Stephan had probable cause, as detailed above, to arrest Plaintiff for driving under

17

the influence, which is an absolute defense. See Clark v. Baines, 150 Wash.2d

18

905, 912 (2004) (en banc) (“[P]roof of probable cause is an absolute defense [to a

19

claim for malicious prosecution].”).

20

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 23