Quinlan v. City of Seattle et al

Filing 50

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiff's 49 Motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, which is treated as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Terrance Quinlan, Prisoner ID: 787918)(MJV)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 TERRANCE JOE QUINLAN, 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, v. C22-0445 TSZ CITY OF SEATTLE; and UNKNOWN SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS, 12 MINUTE ORDER Defendants. 13 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable 14 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (1) Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, which is treated as a motion for reconsideration, docket no. 49, is DENIED, as follows: (a) Plaintiff’s request to add certain employees of the Washington State Department of Corrections (“DOC”) as defendants is DENIED. If plaintiff wishes to pursue claims concerning the conditions of his confinement, he must commence a new action and pay the requisite filing fee. (b) Plaintiff’s contention that the City of Seattle violated his Fourth and Fourteenth (due process) Amendment rights by failing to notify him about the impoundment of his recreational vehicle (“RV”) lacks merit. The entity tasked with providing such notice is the tow contractor, and not the City of Seattle or its police personnel. See SMC 11.30.100(A) (“Not more than twenty-four (24) hours after impoundment of any vehicle, the tow contractor shall mail a notice by first class mail to the last known and legal owners of the vehicles . . . . The notice shall 23 MINUTE ORDER - 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 contain the full particulars of the impoundment, redemption, and opportunity for hearing to contest the propriety of the impoundment . . . .”). (c) Plaintiff’s evidence indicating that he was in DOC custody at the time his RV was impounded is untimely and does not constitute a basis for altering the judgment in this matter. The Declaration of Patty Willoughby, a paralegal employed in the Office of the Washington State Attorney General, which is dated December 19, 2023, and which was filed in support of plaintiff’s Rule 59 motion, docket no. 49, predates (i) the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued on December 22, 2023, docket no. 45, (ii) plaintiff’s objections to the R&R docketed on January 5, 2024, docket no. 46, and (iii) the Court’s adoption of the R&R by Order dated February 21, 2024, docket no. 47. Plaintiff does not show why he could not have brought the Willoughby declaration and attachment thereto to the Court’s attention earlier through the exercise of reasonable diligence. See Local Civil Rule 7(h). Moreover, even assuming that plaintiff was incarcerated during the period in March 2020 when the 72-hour impound notice was placed on his RV and the vehicle was towed, plaintiff has not demonstrated how the City of Seattle could be held liable pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y.C., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Plaintiff does not show that the alleged constitutional violation resulted from a policy or longstanding practice or custom, an unconstitutional action by an official with policy-making authority, ratification by a policymaker of a subordinate’s unconstitutional conduct, and/or a failure to train that amounts to “deliberate indifference” concerning the constitutional right at issue. See, e.g., Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1147 (9th Cir. 2005); see also City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989). The Seattle police officers involved followed the procedures set forth in the Seattle Municipal Code, and plaintiff’s suggestion that he is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the officers should have done more to find and notify him about the impoundment would be precluded by qualified immunity jurisprudence. See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the events at issue). 17 (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of 18 record and to plaintiff pro se. 19 Dated this 27th day of March, 2024. 20 Ravi Subramanian Clerk 21 s/Laurie Cuaresma Deputy Clerk 22 23 MINUTE ORDER - 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?