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)

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-