Searls v. Grays Harbor County et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting 14 City of Oakville's Motion to Dismiss; granting 17 Grays Harbor County's Motion to Dismiss Party; denying 30 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Grays Harbor County and City of Oakville have been terminated from this matter. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
MARCUS SEARLS,

CASE NO. C11-5673RBL

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER

10
v.
11
12
13

GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, THE
CITY OF OAKVILLE, THE CITY OF
ELMA, STEVE LARSON, and
RICHARD FLETCHER,

14

Defendant.

15
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendant City of
16
Oakville [Dkt. #14], and by Defendant Grays Harbor County [Dkt. #17]. The Court has
17
reviewed the materials for and against said Motions, as well as the Complaint for Damages
18
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [Dkt. #1] and the First Amended Complaint for Damages Under 42
19
U.S.C. § 1983 (proposed) [Dkt. #30]. Oral argument is not necessary. For the following
20
reasons, the Motions to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) are GRANTED. The Motion to
21
Amend the Complaint [Dkt. #30] is DENIED.
22
A plaintiff alleging municipal liability for civil rights violations must prove three
23
elements: (1) a violation of his/her constitutional rights, (2) the existence of a municipal policy or
24

ORDER - 1

1 custom, and (3) a causal nexus between the policy or custom and the constitutional violation.
2 Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). A plaintiff must
3 show that the municipality acted with the requisite degree of culpability, and he must
4 demonstrate a direct casual link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal
5 rights. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997). In other
6 words, the municipality’s actions must be the “moving force” behind the rights deprivation. Id.
7 On the other hand, §1983 liability cannot be vicarious or premised on respondeat superior. Polk
8 County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-94.
9

No set of facts can be cobbled so as to present evidence of a custom, pattern or policy

10 that permits deliberate indifference. If the allegations are true, Steve Larson was engaged in
11 illegal conduct in furtherance of his personal frolic and detour. Neither Grays Harbor County
12 nor the City of Oakville is alleged to be the “moving force” behind the alleged civil rights
13 violation. Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint does not remedy this flaw in his claims
14 against the City and County, and his Motion to Amend [Dkt. #30] is DENIED. The Motions to
15 Dismiss [Dkt #14 and Dkt. #17] are GRANTED and the claims against Grays Harbor County
16 and City of Oakville are Dismissed With Prejudice.
17

Dated this 28th day of December, 2011.

19

A

20

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18

21
22
23
24

ORDER - 2