Ames v. King County et al

Filing 60

ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

TONJA AMES,

8

Case No. C13-1030RSM

Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9

v.
10
11
12
13
14
15

KING COUNTY, Washington; Deputies
HEATHER R. VOLPE, member of the
King County Sheriff’s Department;
CHRISTOPHER SAWTELLE, member of
the King County Sheriff’s Department;
DANIEL L. CHRISTIAN, member of the
King County Sheriff’s Department; and
DOES I-V, inclusive, individual employees
of King County,

16

Defendants.

17
18
19

THIS MATTER comes before the Court after remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The relevant factual background has been set forth in the Court’s prior Order

20

Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and is
21
22
23
24
25

incorporated by reference herein. Dkt. #44 at 2-7. Plaintiff initially brought a number of
claims against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that:
1) Deputy Volpe violated Ms. Ames Fourth Amendment rights by arresting her
without probable cause (Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 37-41);

26

2) Deputy Volpe violated Ms. Ames’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from
27
28

excessive force during that arrest (Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 42-45);
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
PAGE - 1

1

3) Deputy Volpe violated Ms. Ames’ Fourth Amendment rights by conducting an
unreasonable seizure (Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 46-49);

2
3

4) Deputies Volpe, Sawtelle and Christian violated Ms. Ames’ Fourth Amendment

4

rights by conducting an unlawful search (Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 50-52);

5

5) King County acted with deliberate indifference to Ms. Ames’ rights by failing to
6

adequately train its Deputies (Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 53-61); and

7
8

6) Deputy Volpe violated Ms. Ames’ First Amendment rights by retaliating against her

9
10

for refusing to let her enter her home (Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 62-65).
On Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court found that Deputy Volpe was

11

entitled to qualified immunity on all but the excessive force claim.

Dkt. #44 at 19.

12
13

Specifically, the Court found that questions of material fact existed such that a jury should

14

determine whether the amount of force used during Ms. Ames’ arrest was reasonable and

15

justified. Id. at 14-15. The Court further found that Deputies Sawtelle and Christian were not

16

entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims against them because there was a question
17
18
19

of fact as to whether the emergency doctrine applied to the search they conducted. Dkt. #44 at
15-16. Defendant then appealed this Court’s decision. Dkt. #47.

20

On January 13, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Opinion reversing

21

“[t]hat portion of the district court’s order denying qualified immunity on Ames’s excessive

22

force and unlawful search claims”, finding that Deputy Sawtelle’s and Deputy Christian’s
23
24

“actions were reasonable under the emergency doctrine and they are entitled to qualified

25

immunity from suit”, and remanding the matter to this Court “for entry of an order of

26

dismissal.” Dkt. #58 at 19. The Court of Appeals issued its Mandate on February 6, 2017.

27

Dkt. #59.

28

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
PAGE - 2

1
2
3

Accordingly, at the direction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, this case is
DISMISSED and this matter is now CLOSED.
DATED this 7 day of February, 2017.

4

A

5
6

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
PAGE - 3