Perryman et al v. City of Seattle Police et al

Filing 48

ORDER denying 45 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiffs via USPS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 _______________________________________ ) WAYNE PERRYMAN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) CITY OF SEATTLE POLICE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) No. C17-0274RSL ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ “Motion for Reconsideration of 15 Summary Judgment.” Dkt. # 45.1 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and 16 will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal 17 authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable 18 diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). 19 Plaintiffs acknowledge that the police officers at the scene had no legal obligation to 20 obtain and review the surveillance video before determining that they had probable cause to 21 arrest Sean Perryman. The Court understands the frustration plaintiffs feel about how Sean 22 23 24 25 26 1 The Court granted the City defendants’ motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. Motions to dismiss are decided based on the allegations of the complaint and the key evidence on which the allegations are based (in this case, the documents attached to the complaint and the surveillance videos). The Court did not consider evidence that was not part of the complaint or apply the summary judgment standards. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1 Perryman was treated at the scene on April 4, 2015. However, while the Court is sympathetic to 2 plaintiffs’ wish that the authorities would consider the larger societal issue of whether or not an 3 African-American was mistreated on “moral” grounds, it is the Court’s responsibility to limit its 4 review to the legal obligations at issue. 5 Keeping in mind the Court’s role, the municipal defendants satisfied their constitutional 6 duties. Even if one were to assume that a more thorough investigation would have convinced the 7 officers that Justin Ismael, rather than Sean Perryman, was the aggressor and/or that certain 8 witnesses were untrustworthy, the Constitution requires a reasonable, not a perfect, investigation 9 when determining probable cause. Although plaintiffs clearly disagree with the Court’s 10 conclusion that the officers had probable cause to arrest Sean Perryman, they have not shown 11 manifest error or provided new evidence. Plaintiffs have therefore not met their burden. The 12 motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 13 14 15 Dated this 7th day of June, 2017. A Robert S. Lasnik 16 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -2-

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?