Pearson v. Grant County Sheriffs Department et al

Filing 35

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - granting 30 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (CC, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5
6
7
8

4:15-CV-05006-EFS

Plaintiff,

9
10

No.

PATRICK ELLIOT PEARSON,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
DEPUTY JASON BALL and GRANT
COUNTY,

11
Defendants.
12
13
Before

the

Court,

without

oral

argument,

is

the

Defendants’

14
Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 30. In this suit, Plaintiff
15
Patrick Elliot Pearson alleges that Grant County Deputy Sheriff Jason
16
Ball

violated

his

rights

under

the

Fourth

Amendment

of

the

U.S.

17
Constitution and is suing Deputy Ball and Grant County pursuant to 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 9. Specifically, Mr. Pearson claims that Deputy
19
Ball

requested

a

search

warrant

using

false

information

and

then

20
executed the search warrant, which was issued without the requisite
21
probable

cause.

Id.

Defendants

contend

that

Deputy

Ball

never

22
intentionally provided incorrect information to the magistrate judge,
23
that he executed a validly issued search warrant, and that he is
24
protected by qualified immunity. ECF No. 16.
25
26

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

1

I.

Statement of Facts1

2

On January 24, 2014, Grant County Deputy Sheriff Jason Ball

3

applied for a search warrant requesting to search the property located

4

at

5

buildings on the property, including a large yellow shop on the south

6

east corner of the property. ECF No. 34, Ex. C. Deputy Ball believed

7

that the property and the buildings contained stolen property. ECF No.

8

31 at 1. This belief was based in part on information provided to

9

Deputy Ball by a confidential informant (CI). ECF No. 34, Ex. C at 4.

10

The search warrant was issued on January 27, 2014. ECF No. 34, Ex. B.

11

at 2. Law enforcement officers arrived at the property and executed

12

the search warrant. Id.

13

4562

Road

N

N.E.

in

Moses

Lake,

Washington,

and

any

and

all

During the execution of the warrant, law enforcement discovered

14

a number

of stolen items as well as a

15

methamphetamine

16

subsequently arrested. ECF No. 34, Ex. A. A Grant County Superior

17

Court Judge later found the search warrant lacked probable cause and

18

dismissed the charges against Mr. Pearson. ECF No. 34, Ex. B at 8.

19

Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit claiming that the search warrant was

20

fraudulently obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. ECF

21

No. 9. Defendants claim they are protected by qualified immunity.

and

drug

paraphernalia.

locked
Id.

toolbox
Mr.

containing

Pearson

was

22
1

Because Mr. Pearson did not file any documents in response to

23
Defendants’ summary-judgment motion, this background is based on the
24
facts contained in Defendants’ summary-judgement materials. See Fed.
25
R. Civ. P. 56(e); LR 56.1(b).
26

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2

1

II.

Standard of Review

2

Summary judgment is appropriate if the record establishes "no

3

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

4

judgment as a matter of law.@

5

opposing summary judgment must point to specific facts establishing a

6

genuine dispute of material fact for trial.

7

477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

8

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986).

9

make such a showing for any of the elements essential to its case for

10

which it bears the burden of proof, the trial court should grant the

11

summary-judgment motion.

12

III. Analysis

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

The party

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

If the non-moving party fails to

Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322.

13

In a judicial deception claim, “the plaintiff must 1) make a

14

‘substantial showing’ of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard

15

for the truth and 2) establish that, but for the dishonesty, the

16

challenged

17

Riverside, 120 F.3d 965, 973 (9th Cir. 1997), as amended (Oct. 9,

18

1997) (quoting Hervey v. Estes, 65 F.3d 784 (9th Cir.1995)). “If a

19

plaintiff

20

trial.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

action

would

satisfies

not

these

have

occurred.”

requirements,

the

Liston

matter

v.

Cty.

should

go

of

to

Mr. Pearson claims the “search warrant was issued because Deputy

21
22

Jason

Ball

knowingly

falsified

23

magistrate [to]

24

Specifically, Mr. Pearson argues that Deputy Ball “made no reference

25

to a shop or any outbuildings” in his affidavit and that he “purposely

26

and knowingly left out the identity of his informant and misled the

believe

he had

and

omitted

information

probable cause.”

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3

causing

ECF No. 9 at

a
6.

1

magistrate into thinking his informant had validity.” Id. at 5. Mr.

2

Pearson relies largely on the order issued from the Grant County

3

Superior Court Judge. ECF No. 9 at 5-6. However, in looking at the

4

affidavit, this Court notes that Deputy Ball listed the “large shop”

5

and all “other outbuildings” on the property right at the top of the

6

affidavit. ECF No. 34, Ex. C at 1. Furthermore, while the identity of

7

the confidential informant was not revealed by Deputy Ball in his

8

affidavit, no evidence has been submitted to the Court to support a

9

claim that this was done intentionally to mislead the magistrate. In

10

his affidavit, Deputy Ball declares that he kept his CI’s name off of

11

the document to protect the CI’s identity and at the CI’s request. ECF

12

No. 34, Ex. C at 4. Mr. Pearson has submitted nothing to this Court to

13

contradict this declaration. By his own admission, this claim is based

14

solely on Mr. Pearson’s personal belief. ECF No. 9 at 5 (“[T]his is my

15

belief . . . .”).
The

16

Court

finds

that

Mr.

Pearson

has

failed

to

make

a

17

substantial “showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for

18

the truth” on the part of Deputy Ball as he applied for the search

19

warrant. Therefore, the Court finds that Mr. Pearson has failed to

20

make

21

summary-judgment in favor of Defendants.2

22

a

showing

for

an

element

essential

to

his

case

and

grants

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

23
24

2

Because Mr. Pearson failed to any present evidence establishing a

25

required element of a judicial deception claim, the Court need not conduct a

26

qualified immunity analysis.

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4

1

1. Defendants’

2

GRANTED.

3
4

2. The

Motion

Clerk’s

Office

for

Summary

is

Judgment,

directed

to

ECF

enter

No.

30,

judgment

is

in

Defendants’ favor.

5

3. All pending dates and deadlines are STRICKEN.

6

4. The file shall be CLOSED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this

Order and provide copies to all counsel and to Mr. Pearson.
DATED this

24th

day of February 2016.

10
11

___s/Edward F. Shea____________________
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Q:\EFS\Civil\2015\5006.ord.grant.sj.lc2.docx

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 5