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)

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-