Castereno v. City of Moses Lake et al

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING 21 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Stanley A Bastian. (AN, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

Sep 05, 2019

4

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9 RAYMOND F. CASTERENO,
10

Plaintiff,

11

NO. 2:17-cv-00219-SAB

v.

12 CITY OF MOSES LAKE,

ORDER DENYING

13 WASHINGTON, and TYE SHEATS,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

14

Defendants.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

15
16

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No.

17 21. A hearing on the motion was held on September 4, 2019, in Yakima,
18 Washington. Richard D. Wall appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, and Michael
19 Franklin appeared on behalf of Defendants.
20

Plaintiff is suing Defendant Tye Sheats, a police officer, and the City of

21 Moses Lake for actions taken by Defendant Sheats during Plaintiff’s arrest at a
22 Dollar Tree store after he refused to leave the premises. He is asserting four claims:
23 (1) excessive use of force, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) failure to adequately train and
24 supervise, Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); (3) negligence; and
25 (4) respondeat superior.
26

Defendants moves for summary judgment on all four claims.

27 //
28 //
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ~ 1

1

Motion Standard

2

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant show that there is no

3 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitle to judgment as a
4 matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). There is no genuine issue for trial unless
5 there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a
6 verdict in that party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250
7 (1986). The moving party has the initial burden of showing the absence of a
8 genuine issue of fact for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).
9 If the moving party meets its initial burden, the non-moving party must go beyond
10 the pleadings and “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
11 trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
12

In addition to showing there are no questions of material fact, the moving

13 party must also show it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smith v. Univ. of
14 Wash. Law Sch., 233 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2000). The moving party is entitled
15 to judgment as a matter of law when the non-moving party fails to make a
16 sufficient showing on an essential element of a claim on which the non-moving
17 party has the burden of proof. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The non-moving party
18 cannot rely on conclusory allegations alone to create an issue of material fact.
19 Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993).
20

When considering a motion for summary judgment, a court may neither

21 weigh the evidence nor assess credibility; instead, “the evidence of the non-movant
22 is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.”
23 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
24

Discussion

25

At the hearing, the Court ruled from the bench. It denied Defendants’

26 Motion regarding the excessive force claim. It concluded that genuine issues of
27 material fact exist regarding whether excessive force was used during the arrest of
28 Plaintiff and a reasonable jury could find in favor of Plaintiff. The parties agreed
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ~ 2

1 that Plaintiff’s Monell claim should be dismissed. The Court indicated that based
2 on its understanding of a recent Washington Supreme Court case of Beltran3 Serrano v. City of Tacoma, __ Wash. 2d. __, 442 P.3d 608 (2019), Plaintiff’s
4 negligence claim survives summary judgment as a matter of law. The parties were
5 invited to submit briefing on this issue. This Order memorializes the Court’s oral
6 ruling.
7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

8

1.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 21, is

9 DENIED.
10

2.

Plaintiff’s Monell claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.

11

3.

Defendants are granted leave to file briefing addressing the recent

12 Washington Supreme Court case of Beltran-Serrano v. City of Tacoma, __ Wash.
13 2d. __, 442 P.3d 608 (2019) as it relates to Plaintiff’s negligence claim no later
14 than September 19, 2019. Plaintiff’s response is due one (1) week after
15 Defendants have filed their briefing.
16

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter

17 this Order and to provide copies to counsel.
18

DATED this 5th day of September 2019.

19
20
21
22
23
24

Stanley A. Bastian

United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ~ 3