Taylor v. Washington Department of Corrections et al

Filing 98

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, denying without prejudice Plaintiff's remaining state law claims in 56 Motion for Summary Judgment & denying 97 MOTION for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. Paper copy sent to plaintiff at Humble TX address. (JL)

Case 3:21-cv-05224-RJB Document 98 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05224-RJB

TERAZZE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONS, ALYSSA KEKOAOSHIRO, JACQUELINE NELSON,
DAVID SATHERS, JEFF KINNE,
DANIELLE ARMBRUSTER, STEPHEN
SINCLAIRE, MAURO PARTIDA, GWIN
PENSROSE,

ORDER ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND
DISMISSING STATE LAW
CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Defendants.

18
19

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt.

20

97) and the Court’s January 9, 2023 order to the parties to show cause, if any they have, why the

21

Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and

22

dismiss them without prejudice (Dkt. 93). The Court has considered the pleadings filed

23

regarding the motion, and the responses to the order to show cause (Dkt. 93 Defendants’

24

response) and (Dkt. 96 Plaintiff’s response) and is fully advised.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE - 1

Case 3:21-cv-05224-RJB Document 98 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 7

1

In this case, the Plaintiff, pro se, asserts that the Defendants violated his rights under the

2

Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the federal Health Insurance

3

Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPPA”), and state law in connection with his court

4

mandated supervised release following felony convictions. Dkt. 9.

5

On January 9, 2023, the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s

6

federal claims was granted. Dkt. 93. In that order, the parties were ordered to show cause, if any

7

they had, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the

8

Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and dismiss them without prejudice.

9

Id. (In his Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts state law claims for “fraudulent

10

representation” and gross negligence and refers to false arrest and “wrongful forfeiture of bail.”

11

Dkt. 9). The January 9, 2023 order renoted the portion of the Defendants’ motion for summary

12

judgment that addressed the Plaintiff’s state law claims to January 20, 2023. Dkt. 93. The

13

background facts are in the Order on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 93 at 1-

14

10) and are adopted here, by reference.

15
16
17

On January 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the pending motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 97)
seeking reconsideration of the January 9, 2023 order dismissing his federal claims (Dkt. 93).
On January 17, 2023, the Plaintiff responded to the order to show cause, arguing that the

18

Court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Dkt. 96. The

19

Defendants also responded and state that they have no cause to oppose the Court declining to

20

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissing those claims without

21

prejudice. Dkt. 94.

22
23

Also on January 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, appealing the undersigned’s January 9, 2023 Order. Dkt. 95.

24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE - 2

Case 3:21-cv-05224-RJB Document 98 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 7

1

This opinion should first consider whether it retains jurisdiction over the case in light of

2

the Notice of Appeal, then the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 97), and then whether

3

the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state law

4

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and dismiss them without prejudice.
DISCUSSION

5
6

A. NOTICE OF APPEAL

7

Once a notice of appeal is filed from a final judgment, the district court is divested of

8

jurisdiction. Laurino v. Syringa General Hosp., 279 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2002); Griggs v.

9

Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58- 59 (1982).  However, when a Notice of Appeal

10

is defective in that it refers to a non-appealable interlocutory order, it does not transfer

11

jurisdiction to the appellate court, and so the ordinary rule that the district court cannot act until

12

the mandate has issued on the appeal does not apply.  Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 908

13

(9th Cir. 2007). 

14

The January 9, 2023 Order on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment does not address

15

all claims against all parties.  No final judgment has been entered in this case.  Plaintiff’s Notice

16

of Appeal (Dkt. 95) is defective in that it seeks to appeal an interlocutory order (Dkt. 93).  This

17

Court retains jurisdiction to decide the pending motion and address the responses to the order to

18

show cause.

19

B. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

20

“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” Local Rule W.D. of Wash. 7(h)(1). The

21

court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior

22

ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its

23

attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rule W.D. of Wash. 7(h)(1).

24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE - 3

Case 3:21-cv-05224-RJB Document 98 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 7

1

The Plaintiff maintains that the Court erred when it dismissed his due process claims,

2

asserted under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments, and his Fourth Amendment claims for

3

“unreasonable searches and seizures.” Dkt. 97. He contends these rights were violated while he

4

was a prisoner when Defendants applied a Department of Corrections (“DOC”) policy which

5

prohibited him from signing a contract when he wanted to sign it without conditions set by the

6

policy. Id. The Plaintiff asserts that his rights were violated when his early release was delayed

7

and he was not permitted to move to his Pierce County, Washington home while on early release.

8

Id. He does not point to any evidence that a failure to train DOC employees resulted in a

9

constitutional violation but merely asserts that his rights were violated by their actions and

10

concludes that they were not properly trained. Id. He argues that the Court’s reasoning was

11

flawed and that the Court did not draw “reasonable inferences” in his favor. Id. The Plaintiff

12

contends that “there are also several incidents that are entirely omitted from the opinion all

13

together.” Id. He repeatedly argues that his rights were “clearly established.” Id.

14

The Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 97) should be denied. The Plaintiff has

15

failed to show a “manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could

16

not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rule

17

W.D. of Wash. 7(h)(1).

18

As was true in his response to the motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiff quotes the

19

language of these constitutional amendments but fails to cite any cases or other authority to

20

support his theory of their application to the facts presented here. While he maintains that

21

Court’s reasoning was flawed, he has not shown how it was flawed. The Plaintiff’s contention

22

that the Court did not afford him reasonable inferences is without merit. He fails to show that

23
24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE - 4

Case 3:21-cv-05224-RJB Document 98 Filed 01/18/23 Page 5 of 7

1

the “omitted incidents” are supported by evidence, relate to his claims, and/or were actually

2

omitted.

3

The Plaintiff’s arguments that the Court erred in granting the individual Defendants

4

qualified immunity is equally unavailing. Though the Plaintiff repeatedly contends that his

5

rights were “clearly established,” he fails to point to any law that supports his assertions. While

6

case law directly on point is not required for a right to be clearly established, “existing precedent

7

must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Rivas-Villegas v.

8

Cortesluna, 142 S. Ct. 4, 7-8 (2021). This inquiry “must be undertaken in light of the specific

9

context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198

10
11
12

(2004). No precedent was offered. The Plaintiff’s broad statements are not sufficient.
His motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 97) should be denied and the January 9, 2023 Order
on Defendants’ Summary Judgment (Dkt. 93) should be affirmed.

13

C. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

14

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental

15

jurisdiction over a state law claims if: (1) the claims raise novel or complex issues of state law,

16

(2) the state claims substantially predominate over the claim which the district court has original

17

jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,

18

(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining

19

jurisdiction. “While discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law

20

claims is triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367 (c), it is informed by the

21

values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d

22

999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997)(internal citations omitted).

23
24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE - 5

Case 3:21-cv-05224-RJB Document 98 Filed 01/18/23 Page 6 of 7

1

Here, two of the four conditions in § 1367(c) are present. All Plaintiff’s federal claims

2

have been dismissed. Dkt. 93. Accordingly, this Court has “dismissed all claims over which it

3

has original jurisdiction,” and so has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

4

over the state law claims under § 1367(c)(3). Moreover, the remaining state claims “raise novel

5

or complex issues of state law” under § 1367(c)(1). These are issues for which the state court is

6

uniquely suited. Because state courts have a strong interest in enforcing their own laws, See

7

Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill,484 U.S. 343, 352 (1988), the value of comity is served by

8

this Court declining jurisdiction. Further, the values of economy, convenience, and fairness may

9

well be served by this Court’s declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See Acri at 1001.

10

The Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims

11

pursuant to § 1367(c). The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the state law claims

12

(Dkt. 56) should be denied without prejudice. The Plaintiff’s state law claims should be

13

dismissed without prejudice and this case should be closed.
ORDER

14
15

It is ORDERED that:

16



The Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 97) IS DENIED;

17



The January 9, 2023 Order (Dkt. 93) IS AFFIRMED;

18



The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law

19
20

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c);


21
22
23

The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s state law claims
(Dkt. 56) IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;



The Plaintiff’s state law claims ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
and

24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE - 6

Case 3:21-cv-05224-RJB Document 98 Filed 01/18/23 Page 7 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7



This case IS CLOSED.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and
to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
Dated this 18th day of January, 2023.

A
ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE - 7