Potis v. Pierce County et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying 15 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

Download PDF
1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 KELLY POTIS, CASE NO. C14-826 RBL 9 Plaintiff, 10 ORDER DENYING RULE 12(c) MOTION v. 11 [Dkt. # 15] PIERCE COUNTY, et al. 12 Defendants. 13 14 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the 15 Pleadings. [Dkt. #15] Plaintiff Potis asserts constitutional and state law claims, alleging that 16 Defendant officer Thompson arrested and imprisoned her (for obstruction and resisting) without 17 probable cause and with excessive force. The charges against Potis were dismissed. 18 Defendants’ Motion1 has one basis: they claim that the state court already “found” that 19 there was probable cause to arrest Potis, and that that determination conclusively bars any claim 20 based on the notion that there was not, under collateral estoppel. 21 22 23 1 Defendants also ask the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 24 Potis’s related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1367. ORDER DENYING RULE 12(C) MOTION - 1 1 Rule 12(c) is “functionally identical” to Rule 12(b)(6), and the same standard of review 2 applies to motions under either rule. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, 3 Inc., 647 1047, 1054-55 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted). The inquiry is whether the 4 complaint’s factual allegations, together with all reasonable inferences, state a plausible claim for 5 relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, (2009). 6 Generally, a Court may not consider any material outside the pleadings in ruling on a 7 Rule 12 motion, or the motion is converted to one for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 8 (b)(6) There are two exceptions to this rule. First, the Court may consider material submitted as 9 part of the complaint, or upon which the complaint necessarily relies, if the material’s 10 authenticity is not contested. Second, under Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court may take judicial 11 notice of “matters of public record.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 12 2001). 13 Defendants ask the court to take judicial notice of the transcript of a very short and 14 perfunctory hearing, claiming that it is a matter of public record and that it is a binding 15 determination that Thompson had probable cause to arrest Potis: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [Dkt. #16 at Ex. A] This is the sum total of the probable cause “finding” upon which the Defendants’ motion exclusively relies. The Judge described no evidence, and recited no factual 24 [DKT. # 15] - 2 1 basis for this determination. There was no argument, no testimony, and certainly no cross 2 examination. 3 At the same time the Defendants inexplicably ask the Court to dismiss the case on this 4 evidence, they oppose Potis’s effort to supply the context—which is also “a matter of public 5 record”—behind this critical, dispositive “finding.” This includes the criminal complaint, the 6 arrest report, and a prosecutor’s affidavit describing his review of Thompson’s report. [See Dkt. 7 #18] 8 Accordingly, there are at least two problems with Defendants’ Motion. There is no 9 discernible basis for the probable cause finding on the severely limited record Defendants 10 advocate. And they simultaneously ask the court to ignore the rest of the story—a story which, 11 viewed in the light most favorable to Potis, appears to have some holes: Potis’s attorney did not 12 see, and therefore did not have an opportunity to contest, the factual (and potentially hearsay) 13 basis for the probable cause determination. There is no reasonable basis to ignore this fact, while 14 simultaneously accepting the Defendants’ limited submission as the final, factual truth. 15 These are issues for trial, or at least a motion for summary judgment. The Motion for 16 Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED. The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 17 Potis’s inextricably intertwined state law claims, which arise out of the same incident. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated this 30th day of December, 2015. 21 A 22 Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge 20 23 24 [DKT. # 15] - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?