Mercado v. Shawn Williams et al

Filing 54

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re: 30 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (AY, Case Administrator)

1
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

2

Jun 24, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

4
5

DARIN W. MERCADO, an
individual,
Plaintiff,

6
v.

7
8
9
10

STEVEN HARRIS, ROBERT
BENEFIELD, MICHAEL A. RUTH,
JANE DOE RUTH, STEVEN M. BLYRIGGIN, and JANE DOE BLYRIGGIN,

No. 4:14-CV-5071-SMJ

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND GRANTING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.

11
12

On March 31, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on the parties’ cross
13
motions for summary judgment: Defendants Harris and Benefield’s Motion for
14
Summary Judgment, ECF No. 25, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
15
ECF No. 30. Having reviewed the pleadings and the file in this matter, the Court
16
is fully informed and enters the following order
17
This case involves a traffic stop that began in Washington and ended in
18
Oregon. Walla Walla County received a 911 call reporting that Plaintiff Darin
19
Mercado was driving erratically and believed to be under the influence of alcohol.
20
Officers Steven Harris and Robert Benefield of the College Place Police

ORDER - 1

1

Department pursued Mercado in separate cars, with Harris approximately 2

2

minutes in front of Benefield. Harris began attempting to pull Mercado over while

3

still in the State of Washington, but by the time Mercado stopped he was

4

approximately 50 feet into the state of Oregon. Other officers arrived. Deputy

5

Gerrod Martin of the Walla Walla County Sherriff’s Department arrested

6

Mercado, with assistance from other officers. Deputy Martin transported Mercado

7

back to Washington. ECF No. ## at ¶ 84. No Oregon law enforcement was

8

involved.

9

Mercado sued all officers involved under 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The elements

10

of a § 1983 claim are: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a

11

person acting under color of state law and (2) whether this conduct deprived a

12

person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of

13

the United States. Ketchum v. County of Alameda, 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.

14

1987). Only the second element—whether the officers’ actions deprived Mercado

15

of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States—is disputed.

16

The primary issue argued by the parties is whether Washington law

17

enforcement had authority to follow Mercado, who they suspected of driving

18

under the influence, into Oregon to arrest him. The Court finds that no such

19
20

ORDER - 2

1

authority exists.1 But, as the Defendant officers point out, a violation of this part

2

of ORS 133.430(1) is not a violation of a right guaranteed by the Constitution and

3

laws of the United States. However, after arresting Mercado, Deputy Martin

4

transported Mercado to the Walla Walla County Jail. As Mercado argues, he was

5

“transport[ed] back to Washington in violation of Oregon and federal law”. ECF

6

No. 30 at 11.

7

The statute implementing the Extradition Clause requires a state seeking a

8

fugitive that has fled to another state to produce documentation that the fugitive

9

has been charged with a crime and requires the state in which the fugitive has fled

10

to arrest that fugitive and deliver him to an agent of the demanding state. 18

11

U.S.C. § 3182. It is undisputed that no such procedure was followed. An officer

12

violates the Extradition Clause and its implementing statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3182,

13

when he or she pursues a traffic suspect into another state, arrests him, and

14

transports him back across state lines without following the procedures laid out

15

therein. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 919-20 (9th Cir. 1986).

16
17
1

18
19
20

Oregon law permits law enforcement “who enters this state in fresh pursuit, and continues within this state in such
fresh pursuit, of a person in order to arrest the person on the ground that the person is believed to have committed a
felony in the other state”. ORS § 133.430(1). Officer Harris suspected Mercado was driving under the influence.
Driving under the influence is a misdemeanor in Washington. RCW 46.61.502(5). The fact that driving under the
influence is “treated as a felony for purposes of arrest” in Washington is irrelevant. So too is the fact that
Washington law permits out-of-state law enforcement to pursue a person suspected to have driven under the
influence into Washington. Washington law controls in Washington, not Oregon. Officer Harris pursued Mercado
from Washington into Oregon on the ground that he believed he committed a misdemeanor—not a felony—in
Washington. Under ORS § 133.430(1), he had no authority to do so.

ORDER - 3

1
2

The Defendant officers argue that even if their actions violated Mr.
Mercado’s rights, they are protected by qualified immunity.

3

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so

4

long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

5

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Mullenix v.

6

Luna, 136 S.Ct. 305, 308 (2015). A clearly established right is one that is

7

sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what

8

he is doing violates that right. Mullenix, 136 S.Ct. at 308. Qualified immunity

9

protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.

10

Mullenix, 136 S.Ct. at 308.

11

The question, then, is whether Mercado’s transport from Oregon to

12

Washington violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person

13

would have known. Plaintiff argues that the right was clearly established by

14

Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1986).

15

In Draper, Washington state troopers pursued a man driving erratically

16

from Washington into Oregon. Once the troopers pulled the driver over, they

17

called the Portland police and waited for them to come.

18

officers arrived, the troopers arrested the driver and transported him back to

19

Washington. The driver filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the state

20

troopers and the Portland officers, among others. The district court found that the

ORDER - 4

After the Portland

1

claims against the troopers and Portland officers were legally sufficient but

2

dismissed them anyway for other reasons. The driver appealed. The 9th Circuit

3

concluded that the driver’s claims that the officers failed to follow extradition

4

procedures required by the Oregon Uniform Act on Fresh Pursuit, Or. Rev. Stat.

5

§§ 133.410–133.440, and the federal Extradition Clause and its implementing

6

statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3182, were legally sufficient claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

7

and should not have been dismissed.

8

This case clearly establishes that the extradition procedures laid out in 18

9

U.S.C. § 3182 and the Oregon Uniform Act on Fresh Pursuit apply to officers who

10

begin pursuing a driver in one state and arrest them in another state. This case

11

also permits a section 1983 claim to proceed against officers who were present but

12

did not participate in the physical transport of the driver back to another state to be

13

liable. Accordingly, Officers Harris and Benefield are not entitled to qualified

14

immunity.

15

Because the Court concludes that the officers are liable to Mercado for

16

violating his rights under the Extradition Clause and its implementing statute, the

17

Court does not reach the other, alternative bases for liability argued in the

18

briefing.

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

20

ORDER - 5

1

1.

DENIED.

2
3

2.

6
7

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 30, is
GRANTED.

4
5

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 25, is

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order
and provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this 24th day of June 2016.

8
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge

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

Q:\SMJ\Civil\2014\Mercado v Walla Walla County-5071\ord cross sj lc1 2 docx

ORDER - 6