Perryman et al v. City of Seattle Police et al

Filing 78

ORDER granting Defendants' 58 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; claims asserted by Reverend Wayne Perryman and any claim asserted under RCW 9A.76.175 are hereby DISMISSED, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiffs via USPS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 _______________________________________ ) WAYNE PERRYMAN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) CITY OF SEATTLE POLICE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) No. C17-0274RSL ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13 This matter comes before the Court on “Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary 14 Judgment re Claims by Plaintiff Wayne Perryman and Claims Under RCW 9A.76.175.” Dkt. 15 # 58. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Justin Ismael and security guards employed by defendant 16 Rhino Room deliberately and intentionally framed plaintiff Sean Perryman for injuries Ismael 17 suffered in a fight outside the Rhino Room on April 4, 2015. Plaintiffs assert causes of action 18 described as “violations of 42 U.S. Code 1983 for defamation, deprivation of rights and 19 privileges, violations of 42 U.S. Code 2000a for denial of equal access, and for Malicious Intent 20 for making false statements that were not privileged for the sole purpose of having Sean C. 21 Perryman arrested for a crime he did not commit.” Dkt. # 46 at 1.1 Plaintiff Wayne Perryman 22 23 24 25 26 1 To the extent plaintiffs have asserted a separate cause of action under RCW 9A.76.175, that claim fails as a matter of law. The statute provides that making a false or misleading material statement to a police officer is a gross misdemeanor. It is a criminal statute and does not create a private right of action. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 alleges that he suffered financial, reputational, and emotional damages as a result of defendants’ 2 conduct toward his son. 3 Reverend Perryman does not and cannot allege that defendants discriminated against him, 4 that he was denied a public accommodation, or that he was defamed or framed. Rather, 5 Reverend Perryman seeks to recover for harms he personally suffered that are causally related to 6 defendants’ alleged mistreatment of his son. In particular, Reverend Perryman asserts that he had 7 to borrow money to pay Sean’s legal bills and medical costs, that the family name has been 8 tarnished, and that he continues to worry about Sean’s future now that his son has an arrest on 9 his record. There are certain “limits on the class of persons who may invoke the courts’ 10 decisional and remedial powers,” however. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975). Even 11 where plaintiff has suffered a legally cognizable injury such as medical costs or emotional 12 damages, the Supreme Court has held that “the plaintiff generally must assert his own legal 13 rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal right or interests of third 14 parties.” Id. Reverend Perryman’s claim is essentially that defendants’ violations of his son’s 15 rights caused damage to the father. The prudential limitations the federal judiciary has imposed 16 on standing do not permit such a claim. 17 18 For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment is 19 GRANTED. The claims asserted by Reverend Wayne Perryman and any claim asserted under 20 RCW 9A.76.175 are hereby DISMISSED. 21 22 23 24 25 Dated this 24th day of October, 2017. A Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 26 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT -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?