Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 1-1 Filed 06/13/2005

CENTER FOR JUSTICE BREEAN BEGGS, WSBA # 20795 2 35 West Main, Suite 300 Spokane, WA 9920 I 3 (509) 835-5211 4 Attorney for Plaintiffs
5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

10

SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and ) others similarly situated.

Case No.:

CV-05-180-FVS

11

12

Plaintiffs,

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

13

vs.

CLASS ACTION

14 SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal corporation.

15

Defendants.
16

17
I. INTRODUCTION
18
19 1. This class action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damage

20

against Defendant SPOKANE COUNTY for violations of the Plaintiffs, an

21

others similarly situated, civil rights guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteent

22

23

Amendments through their jail intake booking fee policy pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

24

§§ 1983 and 1988. Spokane County's policy regarding the reimbursement o

25

jail intake fees is illegal in that it violates Mr. Huss's, and others similar!

COMPLAINT- I

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, W A 9920 I
(509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 1-1 Filed 06/13/2005

situated, clearly established constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth

2

Amendments not to be deprived of his propetiy without due process of law

3
Further, R.C.W. § 70.48.390 is facially unconstitutional.
4

5

II. JURISDICTION & VENUE

6 2. This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 an
7
1361,28 U.S.C. § 2201, and 5 U.S.C. § 702.
8
3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b)(2), (e)(2)-(3).
9
10 4. This action is brought pursuant to the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to th

11

United States Constitution, R.C.W. 70.48.390, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988.

12
5. All acts complained of herein occurred in Spokane County, Washington.
13
III. PARTIES
14

15 6. Plaintiff, SHAWN HUSS, is a single man and residing in Spokane County

16

which is within the Eastern District of Washington and has been at all time

17
relevant herein. He is a real party in interest in this case.
18

19 7. Defendant, SPOKANE COUNTY is a municipal corporation and is locate

20

within the Eastern District of Washington.

21

IV. FACTS

22
8. On or about May 14, 1999 the Washington legislature passed RCW 70.48.390
23
amending RCW 70.48, which authorized city, county, and regional jails to
24
take a $10.00 booking fee from the person of each individual booked. (S.H.B.
25
1143, (1999)).

COMPLAINT - 2

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, W A 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 1-1 Filed 06/13/2005

9. On or about May 7, 2003, the 581h legislature of Washington amended R.C.W. §

2

70.48.390 to allow counties to collect "jail's actual booking costs or on

3
hundred dollars, whichever is less." (S.H.B. No 1232 (2003)).
4

5 1O.On or about November 19, 2003, Lt. Edee Hunt and Tim O'Brien, the Deput

6

Prosecuting Attorney sent a memorandum to the Spokane Board of Count

7

Commissioners regarding the collection of booking fees.

8
1l.On or about February 24, 2004 the Spokane County Board of Commissioner
9

10

passed resolution 04-0160 which authorized the Spokane County Jail to develo

11

and implement a procedure to collect a booking fee from persons booked in th

12
Spokane County Jail in accordance with RCW 70.48.390.
13
14 12.The Spokane County Jail adopted a policy which authorizes the collection of a

15

intake fee. Federal inmates are charged the federal daily rate, while non-federal

16

inmates are charged the jail intake fee which was $89.12 as of August, 2004.

17
13.The official policy allows fees to be taken from the person of the inmate at th
18

19

time of booking. If the person does not have adequate fees on their person a

20

the time of booking, a charge is assessed to the persons account.

21 14.lnmates booked for housing only, while in transit, or who are transferre
22
between facilities are not charged.
23
24 15. The policy does not provide for a pre-deprivation hearing, nor any othe

25

opportunity for the inmate to contest the seizure of his/her money.

COMPLAfNT- 3

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 1-1 Filed 06/13/2005

16. Spokane County adopted a reimbursement policy which places the burden o

2

the inmate to prove that the criminal charges were dropped or that he wa

3
acquitted in order to redeem his funds. Specifically, the policy states "it is you
4

5

responsibility to provide the prooffrom the Courts that your charges have bee

6

dismissed or you have been acquitted" and that only upon an investigation b

7

the Spokane County Jail Staff may the individual receive his funds back.

8

17.Captain Collins announced the implementation of this official policy, a
9

10

described above, effective on or about May 5, 2004.

II 18.0n or about October 31, 2004, the Plaintiff was an·ested based on a frivolou
12
domestic violence complaint.
13
14 19.He was taken to the Spokane County Jail.
15 20.Upon being booked, his wallet was seized as personal property that would b

16

returned to him upon release. Unbeknownst to Mr. Huss, Spokane Count

17
seized $37.00 from Mr. Huss' wallet for the County's use and benefit.
18

19 2l.At the time of the property seizure, Spokane County did not inform Mr. Hus

20

that it was charging him a booking fee, that the statute mandated return of th

21

fee upon dismissal of charges, or the process for obtaining a refund.

22
22. While in jail Mr. Huss was informed by other inmates that he should not t
23

24

expect to get any money that was in his wallet back when he was released.

25

COMPLAINT- 4

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 9920 1 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 1-1 Filed 06/13/2005

23.Mr. Huss was subsequently released from the Spokane County Jail, and a!

2

charges were dropped.

3
24. Upon release, his funds were not returned to him.
4

5 25.At the time of his release, Mr. Huss was not provided with Spokane Count

6 Jail's Reimbursement Form or any other means to get his funds back.
7 26.Mr. Huss, lives on a limited income, and was dependant on the $37.00 to fee
8
and provide for his family until his next pay check.
9
10 27.To date, Spokane County has not to refunded Mr. Huss's money.

11 28.Pursuant to Spokane County's reimbursement policy, Mr. Huss must waive hi

12
rights to any due process in order to redeem his property.
13
14 29.Upon belief, since May 5, 2004, Spokane County has seized thousands o

15

dollars from hundreds of inmates at the Spokane County Jail under the sam

16

procedures used with Mr. Huss; including failure to provide adequate notic

17
and an adequate pre-deprivation hearing.
18

19 30.Upon belief, dozens, if not hundreds of those inmates were entitled to receiv

20

reimbursement of their seized monies after the criminal proceedings agains

21

them were terminated in their favor.

22
3l.All actions taken in regards to the seizure and collection of cash described i
23

24

the foregoing paragraphs were undertaken according to official county practic

25

and policy as approved by the County Commissioners and other policy makers.

COMPLAINT· 5

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 1-1 Filed 06/13/2005

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 2 32.Mr. Huss brings this action on behalf of himself, and all others who ar

3

similarly situated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2), (3). Th

4
Plaintiff provisionally proposes the following class definition:
5

6

All individuals who have been charged an intake fee by

the Spokane County Jail without an adequate notice

7

and/or hearing, in violation of their due process rights

8

under the law.

9 33.This is an appropriate class action because the proposed class is so numerou

10

that joinder of all members is impracticable.

1 1
34.There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including whethe
12

13

Defendant's actions violate their due process rights under the Fifth an

14

Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

15 35.The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class.
16
36.The named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.
17
18 37.The named Plaintiff has available competent counsel with experience in civi

19

rights, and prisoners' rights who are willing and able to protect the interests o

20
the class.
21
38.The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable t
22

23

the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief, an

24

monetary damages with respect to the class as a whole.

25

COMPLAINT- 6

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 1-1 Filed 06/13/2005

VI.

CAUSES OF ACTION

2

A. CIVIL RIGHTS- VIOLATION OF FIFTH AND

3

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

4 39.Plaintiff realleges all matters set forth in paragraphs 9 through 38, above.

5 40.The actions of defendant Spokane County, complained of above in paragraphs 8

6
through 38, above, were taken under color of state law. These actions constitute
7

8

clearly established violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments right to

9

be free unlawful takings of property without due process of law.

10 4l.The Defendant's official intake fee collection policy violates Plaintiffs rights
II
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for several
12

13

reasons:

14

1) it does not provide him with adequate notice of the seizure of his

15
property and his attendant rights;

16

17

2) it does not provide an opportunity to object to the taking of his property,

18

and to assert a reason, such as indigent status or exempt source of funds,

19

that may prevent the County from taking his money;

20
3) it does not provide any type of hearing prior to taking the property; and
21

22

4) impermissibly places the burden on Mr. Huss to get his money back.

23

Furthennore, there are no procedural safeguards guaranteeing that Mr.

24

Huss's property will be returned in the event that that he is not charged,

25

COMPLAINT - 7

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 9920 I (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 1-1 Filed 06/13/2005

or if he is acquitted. Therefore, Spokane County has violated Mr. Huss's

2

due process rights.

3
42.The Defendant's actions constitute an unlawful taking in violation of Mr. Huss'
4

5

Fifth Amendment Rights. Mr. Huss has a clear property right in his personal

6

money. The taking and keeping of his personal property without a hearing

7

violates his right to be free from unlawful government takings and subjects the

8

Defendant to a higher level of scrutiny in order to justify its actions.
9

10 43.Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that

11 Defendants Resolution 04-0160 and RCW 70.48.390 are unconstitutional.

12
44.Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction under the
13

14

traditional equitable criteria: 1) there is a strong likelihood that Plaintiff will

15

succeed on the merits, 2) there is a possibility of irreparable injury to the

16

plaintiff, and other's similarly situated if injunctive relief is not granted, and 3)

17
the hardship placed on the Plaintiff by Defendant's Resolution 04-0160 and
18

19

RCW 70.48.390 outweigh the public interest of maintaining the Defendant's

20

policy.

21 45.Defendants acted intentionally, knowingly, and/or with reckless or careless
22
disregard and/or deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
23
24 46.Defendants are liable for damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees

25

under42U.S.C. §§ 1983,1988.

COMPLAINT- 8

Center for Justice 35 West Main. Suite 300
Spokane, W A 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 1-1 Filed 06/13/2005

B. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

2 1. Plaintiffrealleges all matters set forth in paragraphs 8 through 46, above.

3 2. Defendant Spokane County explicitly adopted and implemented a policy,
4
custom, or practice permitting its employees to collect booking fees from the
5

6

person of individuals at the time they are booked without a pre-deprivation

7

hearing pursuant to Spokane County Resolution 04-0160 and RCW 70.48.390

8
these policies, customs, or practices explicitly allow, condone, ratifY, and afford

9

10

the reckless, careless, and erroneous field decisions by its personnel so as to

II

make mistakes or act willfully, wantonly and/or recklessly.

12 3. Defendant Spokane County, individually or through its agencies, is a "person"

13
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All actions taken by Spokane County
14

15

in relation to the Plaintiffs were taken under the color of law.

16 4. In violation of the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

17

Constitution, Defendant Spokane County's illegal actions have deprived

18
Plaintiff of his Constitutionally-protected rights against:
19

20

a. Taking Property without due process of law; and

21

b. Taking Property without just compensation.

22
23 5. By its conduct as described herein, Spokane County proximately caused the

24

constitutional violations described above.

25

COMPLAINT - 9

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, W A 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 1-1 Filed 06/13/2005

6. By this conduct, Spokane County violated Plaintiffs' federal constitutional and

2

statutory rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

3
DAMAGES
4

5 47. Spokane County's illegal seizure of money from Mr. Huss and other class

6

members proximately caused special damages in the amount of money, taken,

7

pre-judgment interest in an amount to be proven at trial, consequential damages

8

in an amount to be proven at trial, and nominal damages.
9

IO

VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

I I

Wherefore, the Plaintiff asks this Court to grant the following relief:

12
48.Certify this case as a class action under FRCP 23(b)(2), (3);
I 3
I4 49.Issue a declaratory judgment, declaring that Defendants Resolution 04-0160

15

and RCW 70.48.390 violate Plaintiffs' due process and equal protection rights

16

under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and is unconstitutional;

17
50.Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the collection of
I8

I9

inmate booking fees at the Spokane County Jail pursuant to either Spokane

20

County Resolution 04-0160 or RCW 70.48.390;

2I 5 l.Award Plaintiff all special, general damages resulting directly and proximately
22
from Defendant's conduct, as set forth above, in an amount to be determined at
23

24

trial;

25 52.For all prejudgment and post judgment interest as allowed by law;

COMPLAINT- 10

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 1-1 Filed 06/13/2005

53.Award Plaintiffs all reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in connection

2

with this lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, or any other applicable law; an

3
54.For any further or additional relief which the court finds equitable, appropriate,
4

5

or just.

6

7

Respectfully submitted this day of June, 2005

8

9

IO

Breea1 · gs, WSBA# 20795

Attorney for Plaintiffs

I I

Center for Justice

I2

35 West Main, Suite 300

Spokane, WA 99201]

I3

Phone: (509) 835-5211

Fax: (509) 835-3867

I4

I5

I6

I7

I8

I9

20

2I

22

24 25
COMPLAINT- II

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 9920 I (509) 835-52II

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 75 Filed 08/29/2006

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

4
5 SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and others similarly situated,
6
Plaintiff,
7
v.
8

No. CV-05-180-FVS
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9
SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal corporation,
10
Defendant,
11

12
v.
13
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
14
WASHINGTON,
15
Intervenor Defendant.
16

17
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary
18
Judgment (Ct. Rec. 27) and Defendant’s Motion for Failure to State a
19
Claim; Alternatively for Summary Judgment (Ct. Rec. 36). Plaintiff is
20
represented by Breean Beggs. Defendant Spokane County is represented
21
by James Kaufman and Frank Conklin. Timothy Ford represents the
22
Washington State Attorney General.
23
I. BACKGROUND
24
Plaintiff, Shawn Huss, filed suit individually and on behalf of a
25
class of others similarly situated, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988,
26

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 75 Filed 08/29/2006

1 seeking both monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

2 Plaintiff alleges the official booking fee policy of the Spokane

3 County Jail (the Jail) and RCW 70.48.390 are facially unconstitutional

4 by depriving persons of their property without due process of law in

5 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

6 Constitution.

7

In May 1999, the Washington legislature passed RCW 70.48.390,

8 authorizing city, county, and regional jails to take a $10.00 booking

9 fee from the person of each individual booked into jail. In May 2003,

10 the Washington legislature amended RCW 70.48.390, allowing jails to

11 require each person who is booked into jail to pay a fee based on the

12 jail’s actual booking costs or one hundred dollars, whichever is less.

13 The “fee is payable immediately from any money then possessed by the

14 person being booked” into jail. RCW 70.48.390.

15

In accordance with RCW 70.48.390, on or about February 24, 2004,

16 the Spokane County Board of Commissioners passed Resolution 04-0160,

17 which authorized the Jail to develop and implement a procedure to

18 collect a fee from persons booked into jail. On May 5, 2004, pursuant 19 to Resolution 04-0160, the Jail adopted an official policy1 (“Policy”)

20 authorizing the collection of a booking fee. Under this Policy,

21 federal inmates are charged the federal daily rate while non-federal

22 inmates are charged the actual jail booking costs--$89.12. Pursuant

23 to the statute, the Policy allows the fees to be taken directly from

24 any funds found on the person at the time of booking. If the person

25

26

1 Policy 2.00.00 Booking

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 2

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 75 Filed 08/29/2006

1 does not have adequate funds to cover the booking fee at the time, a

2 charge is assessed to the person’s account. The Policy does not

3 provide a mechanism for determining whether the money taken from the

4 person is exempt public benefits or the property of a third person.

5 The Policy does not provide for a pre-deprivation hearing or any other

6 opportunity for persons to contest the taking of their money.

7 Instead, the Jail adopted a separate reimbursement policy. Under this

8 reimbursement policy, the individual is required to prove his charges

9 were dropped or that he was acquitted, and then, upon investigation by 10 the Spokane County Jail Staff, the inmate may2 be reimbursed for his

11 intake fee.

12

In the present case, Mr. Huss was arrested based on a domestic

13 violence complaint and booked into the Spokane County Jail on October

14 31, 2004. Mr. Huss' wallet was inventoried as personal property that

15 would be returned upon his release, but the Jail took all of the money

16 from Mr. Huss’ wallet ($39.30) as payment on the booking fee ($89.12).

17 The Spokane County jail did not inform Mr. Huss he was being charged a

18 booking fee, that there was a reimbursement policy in place, or that

19 the money was required to be returned if his charges were dropped or

20 he was acquitted. Mr. Huss was released from jail the next day after

21 all of the charges were dropped. Upon his release, his money was not

22 returned and he did not receive a copy of the Jail’s reimbursement

23

24
2 The “Spokane County Jail Claim Form For Reimbursement of
25 Intake Fees” specifically states that the Jail Staff will
investigate all claims and the decision to honor the claim is 26 based on that investigation.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 3

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 75 Filed 08/29/2006

1 policy. The Spokane County Jail eventually returned Mr. Huss’ money

2 on February 23, 2005, approximately four months after the charges

3 against him were dropped, and after Mr. Huss’ lawyer sent a letter to

4 Spokane County stating the Jail’s booking fee policy was

5 unconstitutional.

6

In January 2005, the Jail modified its forms and procedures

7 related to the collection of booking fees. It is now a requirement

8 that each person booked into jail receive paperwork outlining methods

9 for obtaining reimbursement. Further, persons who are released and

10 not charged within 72 hours, automatically, without request, have

11 their booking fees returned if paid in part or in full. The Jail also

12 automatically voids any unpaid booking fee for all inmates who are

13 found not-guilty, acquitted, or have their charge dismissed.

14

Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment, requesting a ruling

15 that the Spokane County Jail’s booking fee policy and RCW 70.48.390

16 are facially unconstitutional in that they permit Spokane County to

17 deprive persons of their property without due process of law in

18 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant filed a cross-motion 19 for summary judgment.3 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b), the Court

20
3 Defendant’s motion, which is captioned “Motion to Dismiss
21
for Failure to State a Claim, Alternatively for Summary Judgment” 22 argues Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety
because (1) Plaintiff cannot claim punitive damages from a 23 subdivision of a state; (2) Plaintiff cannot assert a takings
claim because he has not exhausted his administrative remedies; 24 (3) Plaintiff’s rights under the due process clause have not been
violated; and (4) Plaintiff cannot prove Spokane County 25 Resolution 04-0169 and RCW 70.48.390 are unconstitutional on
their face. After Defendant filed its motion to dismiss, the 26 Court permitted Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to remove the

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 4

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 75 Filed 08/29/2006

1 informed the Attorney General of the State of Washington that the

2 constitutionality of a state statue was being challenged and permitted

3 the Attorney General an opportunity to intervene. The Attorney

4 General submitted briefing in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for

5 partial summary judgment and Plaintiff was allowed to reply.

6 II. DISCUSSION

7

"A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most

8 difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must

9 establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the

10 [statute] would be valid." United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739,

11 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 2100, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987); see also In re

12 Detention of Turay, 139 Wash.2d 379, 417 n. 27, 986 P.2d 790 (1999)

13 (stating that a facial challenge must be rejected unless there exists

14 no set of circumstances in which the statute can be applied

15 constitutionally). Thus, to succeed on his facial challenge,

16 Plaintiff must demonstrate there are no circumstances under which the

17 Jail's booking fee policy can be applied constitutionally and it is

18 not possible for any jail to constitutionally implement RCW 70.48.390,

19 which provides;

20

A governing unit may require that each person who is booked

at a city, county, or regional jail pay a fee based on the

21

jail's actual booking costs or one hundred dollars,

whichever is less, to the sheriff's department of the county

22

or police chief of the city in which the jail is located.

23

24 mention of punitive damages and all Fifth Amendment claims. Thus, the only remaining issues in Defendant’s motion are also
25 the subject of Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court views Defendant's motion as a cross-motion
26 for summary judgment.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 5

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 75 Filed 08/29/2006

1

The fee is payable immediately from any money then possessed

by the person being booked, or any money deposited with the

2

sheriff's department or city jail administration on the

person's behalf. If the person has no funds at the time of

3

booking or during the period of incarceration, the sheriff

or police chief may notify the court in the county or city

4

where the charges related to the booking are pending, and

may request the assessment of the fee. Unless the person is

5

held on other criminal matters, if the person is not

charged, is acquitted, or if all charges are dismissed, the

6

sheriff or police chief shall return the fee to the person

at the last known address listed in the booking records.

7

WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 70.48.390 (2002) (emphasis added).

8

A. State’s Argument

9

The State argues RCW 70.48.390 is not facially unconstitutional

10

because it is not mandatory and does not expressly preclude the

11

application of a pre-deprivation or post-deprivation hearing to

12

satisfy due process. Although the statute is not mandatory, the

13

State's argument ignores the express language in the statute stating

14

that if a booking fee policy is enacted, the booking fee is "payable

15

immediately from any money then possessed by the person being booked"

16

into jail. RCW 70.48.390. The State fails to show how a pre-

17

deprivation hearing could be held when the statute requires immediate

18

payment.

19

B. Defendant’s Arguments

20

Defendant contends Plaintiff must first exhaust his

21

administrative remedies before bringing this due process claim under

22

28 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant relies on Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S.

23

527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) and Hudson v. Palmer, 468

24

U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). Defendant’s reliance

25

on these cases is misplaced.

26

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 6

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 75 Filed 08/29/2006

1

In Parratt, a state prisoner brought a Section 1983 action when

2 prison officials negligently lost the prisoner’s hobby kit he had

3 ordered by mail. The prisoner did not dispute that under state law a

4 tort claim procedure was available by which he could recover the value

5 of his hobby kit. The Supreme Court ruled that the tort remedy was

6 all the process the prisoner was due because the loss of his property

7 was the result of a random and unauthorized act. The Parratt Court

8 reasoned:

9

It is difficult to conceive of how the State could provide a

meaningful hearing before the deprivation takes place. The

10

loss of property, although attributable to the State as

action under “color of law,” is in almost all cases beyond

11

the control of the State. Indeed, in most cases it is not

only impracticable, but impossible, to provide a meaningful

12

hearing before the deprivation.

13 Parratt, 450 U.S. at 451, 101 S.Ct. at 1916. In Hudson, the Supreme

14 Court extended the reasoning in Parratt to unauthorized, intentional

15 deprivations of property by state employees. Zinermon v. Burch, 494

16 U.S. 113, 128, 110 S.Ct. 975, 985, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990).

17

Neither Parratt nor Hudson are controlling of the issue before

18 the Court. In Parratt and Hudson, the loss was the result of

19 unauthorized acts by state employees. Here, in contrast, the loss

20 complained of by Plaintiff is the result of a policy established

21 pursuant to statute. Parratt was not designed to reach such a

22 situation. See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435-36,

23 102 S.Ct. 1148, 1158, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982). Parratt and Hudson did

24 not hold that post-deprivation remedies are sufficient to satisfy due

25 process if the deprivation of property is caused by conduct pursuant

26 to an established policy. Rather, “Parratt and Hudson represent a

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 7

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 75 Filed 08/29/2006

1 special case of the general Matthews v. Eldridge analysis, in which

2 post-deprivation tort remedies are all the process that is due, simply

3 because they are the only remedies the state could be expected to

4 provide.” Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 128, 110 S.Ct. at 985. Parratt is

5 not an exception to the Mathews balancing test, but rather an

6 application of that test to an unusual case. Id.

7

The Court also rejects Defendant's argument that due process is

8 satisfied because the police had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.

9 Taking Defendant's argument to its logical extreme, no citizen subject

10 to arrest, guilty or innocent, has a right to his or her property

11 until guilt or innocence has been determined. The Court will not

12 reach such an extreme conclusion.

13

C. Due Process Analysis

14

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that in all cases where a

15 person stands to be deprived of life, liberty or property by the

16 government, he is entitled to due process of law. Kentucky Dept. of

17 Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 1909, 104

18 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989). Procedural due process questions are examined in

19 two steps: “the first asks whether there exists a liberty or property

20 interest which has been interfered with by the State; the second

21 examines whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were

22 constitutionally sufficient." Id. (citation omitted). Here,

23 Defendant concedes that the seizure of Plaintiff’s money implicates a

24 protectible property interest. Therefore, the only issue is what

25 “process” is due to protect against an erroneous deprivation of that

26 interest. Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 2617, 61

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 8

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 75 Filed 08/29/2006

1 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979).

2

In Matthews v. Eldridge, the Supreme Court set forth three

3 factors that normally determine whether an individual has received the

4 “process” that the Constitution finds “due”:

5

First, the private interest that will be affected by the

official action; second, the risk of an erroneous

6

deprivation of such interest through the procedures used,

and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute

7

procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s

interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and

8

administrative burdens that the additional or substitute

procedural requirement would entail.

9

424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 903, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). By

10

weighing these concerns, courts can determine whether a State has met

11

the fundamental requirement of due process; “the opportunity to be

12

heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Id. at 333,

13

96 S.Ct. at 902 (citation omitted). “Applying this test, the

14

[Supreme] Court usually has held that the Constitution requires some

15

type of hearing before the State deprives a person of liberty or

16

property.” Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 127, 110 S.Ct. at 984. “If there

17

are no extraordinary circumstances, then some type of prior hearing is

18

required and an analysis of the three factors under Matthews

19

determines the formality and procedural requisites of the hearing.”

20

Tellevik, 120 Wash.2d at 82, 838 P.2d at 118 (citing Matthews). If

21

the risk of erroneous deprivation to a property interest is great

22

compared to the government’s interest, then due process generally will

23

require a pre-deprivation evidentiary hearing. Id. at 82, 83 P.2d at

24

118.

25

In the present case, Plaintiff argues persons are entitled to a

26

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 9

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 75 Filed 08/29/2006

1 pre-deprivation hearing before the Jail can take their personal

2 property to satisfy a booking fee. Defendant argues Plaintiff is not

3 entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing because the post-deprivation

4 hearing available to Plaintiff satisfies his due process rights.

5 Defendant relies on Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61

6 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979), arguing it is dispositive of the issue before the

7 Court.

8

In Mackey, the Supreme Court upheld a Massachusetts statute

9 mandating a 90-day suspension of a driver’s license for refusing to

10 take a breath-analysis test upon arrest for driving while under the

11 influence. 443 U.S. at 19, 99 S.Ct. at 2621. Applying the Mathews

12 balancing test, the Supreme Court held that the state’s “compelling

13 interest in highway safety justifies” the automatic suspension of a

14 driver’s license “pending the outcome of the “prompt post-suspension

15 hearing available.” Id. The Supreme Court recognized that

16 individuals have a strong property interest in their driver’s license,

17 but concluded the immediate post-suspension hearing before the

18 Registrar of Motor Vehicles to correct any clerical errors and to

19 resolve questions as to whether grounds exist for suspension of the

20 driver’s license, was sufficient to satisfy the due process

21 requirement. See id. at 7-8, n. 5, 99 S.Ct. at 2612, n. 5.

22

Similarly, Defendant argues due process is satisfied by the

23 availability of a post-deprivation hearing. But neither the Policy

24 nor the statute at issue in this case provide for a prompt post-

25 deprivation hearing. Instead, Defendant refers to Washington’s

26 “comprehensive statutory procedure” whereby citizens may file claims

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 10

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 75 Filed 08/29/2006

1 against governmental entities to seek the return of personal property.

2 Defendant did not provide the Court with a citation for this

3 “comprehensive statutory procedure” or explain how this satisfies due

4 process. Nothing before the Court demonstrates that a "prompt"

5 hearing is required under this comprehensive statutory procedure.

6

Moreover, even if a prompt post-deprivation hearing was provided

7 pursuant to the Jail's Policy, Defendant has not shown that this

8 affords adequate due process. In Mackey, the "prompt post-

9 deprivation" hearing was sufficient to ensure adequate due process for

10 the automatic suspension of a driver's license because of the state's

11 "compelling interest in highway safety." Here, Defendant has not

12 shown it has a compelling interest in collecting a booking fee prior

13 to a determination of guilt. Contrary to Defendant’s position, Mackey

14 is not dispositive of the issue before the Court. Mackey, however,

15 does illustrate that the issue before the Court is governed by the

16 Matthews balancing test.

17

While the Defendant concludes that “Matthews v. Eldridge supports

18 Spokane County,” it does not provide the Court with any analysis of

19 the Matthews factors. The State also declined to address the Matthews

20 balancing test.

21

The first Matthews factor requires identification of the nature

22 and weight of the private interest affected by the action challenged.

23 Matthews, 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. at 903. The private interest at

24 issue here is a person's interest in the continued possession and use

25 of his money. This is certainly a significant interest.

26

“The duration of any potentially wrongful deprivation of a

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 75 Filed 08/29/2006

1 property interest is an important factor in assessing the impact of

2 official action on the private interest involved.” Mackey, 443 U.S.

3 at 12, 99 S.Ct. at 2618 (citation omitted). RCW 70.48.390 states only

4 that the booking fee must be returned if the person "is not charged,

5 is acquitted, or if all charges are dismissed.” For those persons who

6 are entitled to have their booking fee returned, the statute permits

7 the wrongful deprivation of a person's money for a considerable length

8 of time (i.e. until such time that the person is exonerated).

9 Although the charges were dropped against Plaintiff one day after he

10 was arrested, Plaintiff’s money was not returned for several months.

11 Under the present Policy, as it was amended in January 2005, Plaintiff

12 and others in his situation would only be deprived of their money for

13 a short period of time because the Policy now requires the automatic

14 return of the booking fee to those persons who are released and not

15 charged within 72 hours. For persons who are not released within 72

16 hours, however, the duration of the deprivation is dependent on the

17 time it takes to navigate through the reimbursement process.

18

Under the second prong of Matthews, the Court evaluates the risk

19 of erroneous deprivation at stake, and the probable value, if any, of

20 additional or substantive safeguards. Matthews, 424 U.S. at 335, 96

21 S.Ct. at 903. Plaintiff relies on City of Redmond v. Moore, 91 p.3d

22 875, 151 Wash.2d 664 (2004), in which the Washington Supreme Court

23 held that the statute providing for mandatory suspension, without an

24 administrative hearing, of driver’s licenses for failure to resolve

25 traffic infractions violated procedural due process. When reviewing

26 the statute under Matthews, the Redmond Court focused, in part, on the

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 12

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 75 Filed 08/29/2006

1 fact that the “possibility exists that error in a conviction record

2 could result in the revocation of the license of an innocent

3 motorist.” City of Redmond, 151 Wash.2d at 672, 91 P.3d at 879. Like

4 the statute at issue in City of Redmond, Plaintiff argues the Jail’s

5 Policy and RCW 70.48.390 subject inmates to unreasonable risks of

6 error.

7

Under the Policy and the statute the booking fee must be returned

8 to all individuals who are acquitted, found not guilty, or whose

9 charges are dropped. Thus, those individuals are wrongly deprived of

10 their right to use and possess their money from the time of booking

11 until such time as they are exonerated. The risk of erroneous

12 deprivation is therefore inevitable in some circumstances. Further,

13 neither the Policy nor the statute provide a mechanism for determining

14 whether the money taken to satisfy the booking fee is exempt public

15 benefits or is actually the property of a third person. Moreover, the

16 Policy provides no safeguards guaranteeing the person's money will be

17 returned in the event the person is acquitted or the charges are

18 dropped later than 72 hours after the time of booking. For those

19 individuals who happen to have money in their possession at the time

20 of booking, the statute and the Jail's Policy place the burden of

21 recovering the money on the incarcerated citizen.

22

The Court determines that the deprivation of property occurs at

23 the moment the booking fee is separated from the remainder of the

24 individual's personal property. It is clear there is no hearing or

25 determination of guilt before this deprivation occurs. Consequently,

26 the risk of erroneous deprivation is great.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 75 Filed 08/29/2006

1

Under the third prong of Matthews, the Court must evaluate the

2 State’s interest behind the statute, including the function involved,

3 and any fiscal and administrative burdens that additional or

4 substitute procedural requirements would entail. Matthews, 424 U.S.

5 at 335, 96 S.Ct. at 903. The parties agree the primary purpose of the

6 booking fee is to raise revenue for the municipality. The interest

7 that must be considered, however, is not the State's general interest

8 in collecting a booking fee, but the specific interest in collecting

9 the booking fee without a determination of guilt and without notifying

10 the individual at the time of booking. See United States v. James

11 Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 56, 114 S.Ct. 492, 502, 126

12 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993) (discussing third consideration under Matthews);

13 see also Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 15-16, 111 S.Ct. 2105,

14 2115, 115 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991) (analyzing the extent of the plaintiff’s

15 interest in ex parte attachment of property, not the plaintiff’s

16 general interest in property attachment). The presence or absence of

17 exigent circumstances is also a critical part of the third Matthews

18 factor. See Doehr, 501 U.S. at 15-16, 111 S.Ct. at 2115-16.

19

Defendant has not shown its interest would be burdened by

20 providing notice and hearing before confiscating a person's money to

21 satisfy the booking fee or by waiting for a finding of guilt and

22 assessing the booking fee as a court cost. The Court is unaware of

23 any exigent circumstances that warrant the postponement of notice and

24 hearing until after the booking fee is collected.

25

V. CONCLUSION

26

Under Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, the Court

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 75 Filed 08/29/2006

1 concludes the Spokane County Jail's Policy and RCW 70.48.390 are

2 facially unconstitutional in that they deprive persons of their

3 property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth

4 Amendment. Since the statute requires immediate payment of the

5 booking fee from any money then possessed by the person being booked,

6 there exists no set of circumstances in which RCW 70.48.390 and the

7 Jail's Policy can be applied constitutionally. The statute and the

8 Policy affect a significant private interest and the risk of erroneous

9 deprivation is extreme compared to the municipality's interest in

10 increasing revenue. In this situation, due process requires a pre-

11 deprivation hearing. Neither the Policy nor the statute, however,

12 provide notice and a hearing before taking a person's money to satisfy

13 the booking fee. Accordingly,

14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

15

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Ct. Rec.

16

27) is GRANTED.

17

2. Defendant’s Motion for Failure to State a Claim;

18

Alternatively for Summary Judgment (Ct. Rec. 36) is DENIED.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby

20 directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to counsel.

21

DATED this 29th day of August, 2006.

22

s/ Fred Van Sickle

23

Fred Van Sickle

United States District Judge

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 15 Filed 07/14/2005

1 CENTER FOR JUSTICE BREEAN BEGGS, WSBA 20795
2 35 West Main, Ste. 300 Spokane, WA 99201
3 (509) 835-5211 Attorney for Plaintiffs
4

HON. FRED VAN SICKLE

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7
SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and )

8 others similarly situated,

) Case No.: CV-05-180-FVS )

9

Plaintiffs,

) ) AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

10

vs.

) VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS )

11

) CLASS ACTION SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal)

12 corporation,

)

)

13

Defendants.

)

14

15

I. INTRODUCTION

16
1. This class action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages
17
18 against Defendant SPOKANE COUNTY for violations of the Plaintiff’s, and

19 others similarly situated, civil rights guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth

20 Amendments through their jail intake booking fee policy pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
21
§§ 1983 and 1988. Spokane County’s policy regarding the reimbursement of
22
23 jail intake fees is illegal in that it violates Mr. Huss’s, and others similarly

24 situated clearly established constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth

25

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 1

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 15 Filed 07/14/2005

1 Amendments (not to be deprived of property without due process of law).
2
Further, RCW 70.48.390 is facially unconstitutional.
3
II. JURISDICTION & VENUE
4
5 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

6 1361, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and 5 U.S.C. § 702.
7
3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2), (e)(2)-(3).
8
4. This action is brought pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
9

10 United States Constitution, RCW 70.48.390, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988.

11 5. All acts complained of herein occurred in Spokane County, Washington.
12
III. PARTIES
13
14 6. Plaintiff SHAWN HUSS is a single man residing in Spokane County, which is

15 within the Eastern District of Washington and he has been a resident of

16 Spokane County at all times relevant herein. He is a real party in interest in this
17
case.
18
19 7. Defendant SPOKANE COUNTY is a municipal corporation and is located

20 within the Eastern District of Washington.
21
IV. FACTS
22
8. On or about May 14, 1999 the Washington legislature passed RCW
23
70.48.390, amending RCW 70.48, which authorized city, county, and regional
24
jails to take a $10.00 booking fee from the person of each individual booked.
25
(S.H.B. 1143, (1999)).

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 2

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 15 Filed 07/14/2005

1 9. On or about May 7, 2003 the 58th legislature of Washington amended RCW
2
70.48.390 to allow counties to collect “jail’s actual booking costs or one
3
hundred dollars, whichever is less.” (S.H.B. No 1232 (2003)).
4
5 10.On or about November 19, 2003 Lt. Edee Hunt and Tim O’Brien, Deputy
6 Prosecuting Attorney, sent a memorandum to the Spokane Board of County
7
Commissioners regarding the collection of booking fees.
8
11.On or about February 24, 2004 the Spokane County Board of Commissioners
9
10 passed resolution 04-0160 authorizing the Spokane County Jail to develop and
11 implement a procedure to collect a booking fee from persons booked in the
12
Spokane County Jail in accordance with RCW 70.48.390.
13
14 12.The Spokane County Jail adopted a policy which authorizes the collection of an
15 intake fee. Federal inmates are charged the federal daily rate, while non-federal
16 inmates are charged the jail intake fee—$89.12 as of August, 2004.
17
13.The official policy allows fees to be taken from the inmate’s person at the time
18
19 of booking. If the person does not have adequate fees on their person at the
20 time of booking, a charge is assessed to the person’s account.
21
14.Inmates booked for housing only, while in transit, or who are transferred
22
between facilities are not charged.
23
24 15. The policy does not provide for a pre-deprivation hearing, nor any other
25 opportunity for the inmate to contest the seizure of his/her money.

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 3

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 15 Filed 07/14/2005

1 16.Spokane County adopted a reimbursement policy which places the burden on
2
the inmate to prove that criminal charges were dropped or that he was acquitted
3
in order to redeem his funds. Specifically, the policy states “it is your
4
5 responsibility to provide the proof from the Courts that your charges have been
6 dismissed or you have been acquitted” and that only upon an investigation by
7
the Spokane County Jail Staff may the individual receive his funds back.
8
17.Captain Collins announced the implementation of this official policy, as
9
10 described above, effective on or about May 5, 2004.
11 18.On or about October 31, 2004, the Plaintiff was arrested based on a frivolous
12
domestic violence complaint.
13
14 19.He was taken to the Spokane County Jail.
15 20.Upon being booked, his wallet was seized as personal property to be returned to
16 him upon release. Unbeknownst to Mr. Huss, Spokane County seized $37.00
17
from Mr. Huss’s wallet for the County’s use and benefit.
18
19 21.At the time of the property seizure, Spokane County did not inform Mr. Huss
20 that it was charging him a booking fee, that the statute mandated return of the
21
fee upon dismissal of charges, nor did they explain to him the process for
22
obtaining a refund.
23
24 22.While in jail Mr. Huss was informed by other inmates that he should not expect
25 to get any money back from his wallet back when he was released.

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 4

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 15 Filed 07/14/2005

1 23.Mr. Huss was subsequently released from the Spokane County Jail and all
2
charges were dropped.
3
24.Upon release, his funds were not returned to him.
4
5 25.At the time of his release, Mr. Huss was not provided with Spokane County
6 Jail’s Reimbursement Form or any other means to get his funds back.
7
26.Mr. Huss lives on a limited income and was dependant on the $37.00 taken
8
from his wallet to feed and provide for his family until his next paycheck.
9
10 27.Pursuant to Spokane County’s reimbursement policy, Mr. Huss must waive his
11 rights to any due process in order to redeem his property.
12
28.Only after being served with Plaintiff’s notice of claim letter outlining
13
14 the violations of his federal rights did Spokane County refund Mr. Huss’s
15 $37.00.
16 29.To date, Defendant Spokane County has not refunded the interest on Mr. Huss's
17
seized money, nor has it compensated him for the consequences of leaving him
18
19 without sufficient funds to support himself after his release from jail.
20 30.Upon belief, since May 5, 2004 Spokane County has seized thousands of
21
dollars from hundreds of inmates at the Spokane County Jail under the same
22
procedures used with Mr. Huss; including failure to provide adequate notice
23
24 and an adequate pre-deprivation hearing.
25

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 5

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 15 Filed 07/14/2005

1 31.Upon belief, dozens, if not hundreds, of those inmates were entitled to receive
2
reimbursement of their seized monies after the criminal proceedings against
3
them were terminated in their favor.
4
5 32.All actions taken in regard to the seizure and collection of cash described in the

6 foregoing paragraphs were undertaken according to official County practice and

7
policy as approved by the County Commissioners and other policy makers.
8

9

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

33.Mr. Huss brings this action on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
10

11 situated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2), (3). The Plaintiff

12 provisionally proposes the following class definition:

13

All individuals who have been charged an intake fee by

14

the Spokane County Jail without an adequate notice

15

and/or hearing, in violation of their due process rights

under the law.

16

34.This is an appropriate class action because the proposed class is so numerous
17

18 that joinder of all members is impracticable.

19 35.There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including whether
20
Defendant’s actions violate Plaintiff’s due process rights under the Fifth and
21
22 Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

23 36.The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class.

24 37.The named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.
25

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 6

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 15 Filed 07/14/2005

1 38.The named Plaintiff has available competent counsel with experience in civil
2
rights and prisoners’ rights who is willing and able to protect the interests of the
3
class.
4
5 39.The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to

6 the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief and
7
monetary damages with respect to the class as a whole.
8
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
9

10

A. CIVIL RIGHTS — VIOLATION OF FIFTH AND

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
11

40.Plaintiff realleges all matters set forth in paragraphs 9 through 39, above.
12

13 41.The actions of defendant Spokane County, complained of above in paragraphs 8

14 through 39, were taken under color of state law. These actions constitute clearly
15
established violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments right to be free
16
17 of unlawful takings of property without due process of law.

18 42.The Defendant’s official intake fee collection policy violates Plaintiff’s rights

19 under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for several
20
reasons:
21

22

1) It does not provide him with adequate notice of the seizure of his

23

property and his attendant rights;

24

25

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 7

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 15 Filed 07/14/2005

1

2) It does not provide an opportunity to object to the taking of his property,

2
and to assert a reason, such as indigent status or exempt source of funds,
3
that may prevent the County from taking his money;
4

5

3) It does not provide any type of hearing prior to taking the property; and

6

4) It impermissibly places the burden on Mr. Huss to get his money back.

7
Furthermore, there are no procedural safeguards guaranteeing that Mr. Huss’s
8
property (or anyone else’s) will be returned in the event that he is not charged, or if
9

10 he is acquitted. Therefore, Spokane County has violated Mr. Huss’s due process

11 rights.
12
43.The Defendant’s actions constitute an unlawful taking in violation of Mr. Huss’s
13
14 Fifth Amendment Rights. Mr. Huss has a clear property right to his personal

15 money. The taking and keeping of his personal property without a hearing

16 violates his right to be free from unlawful government takings and subjects the
17
Defendant to a higher level of scrutiny in order to justify its actions.
18
19 44.Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that

20 Defendant’s Resolution 04-0160 and RCW 70.48.390 are unconstitutional.
21
45.Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction under the
22
traditional equitable criteria: 1) there is a strong likelihood that Plaintiff will
23
24 succeed on the merits, 2) there is a possibility of irreparable injury to the

25 plaintiff, and others similarly situated, if injunctive relief is not granted, and 3)

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 8

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 15 Filed 07/14/2005

1 the hardship placed on the Plaintiff by Defendant’s Resolution 04-0160 and
2
RCW 70.48.390 outweigh the public interest of maintaining the Defendant’s
3
policy.
4
5 46.Defendants acted intentionally, knowingly, and/or with reckless or careless

6 disregard and/or deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
7
47.Defendants are liable for damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees
8
under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988.
9

10

B. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

11 1. Plaintiff realleges all matters set forth in paragraphs 8 through 47, above.

12
2. Defendant Spokane County explicitly adopted and implemented a policy,
13
custom, or practice permitting its employees to collect booking fees from the
14
15 person of individuals at the time they are booked without a pre-deprivation

16 hearing pursuant to Spokane County Resolution 04-0160 and RCW 70.48.390.
17
These policies, customs, or practices explicitly allow, condone, ratify, and
18
afford the reckless, careless, and erroneous field decisions by its personnel so as
19
20 to make mistakes or act willfully, wantonly and/or recklessly.

21 3. Defendant Spokane County, individually or through its agencies, is a “person”
22
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All actions taken by Spokane County
23
24 in relation to the Plaintiff were taken under the color of law.

25

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 9

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 15 Filed 07/14/2005

1 4. In violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
2
Constitution, Defendant Spokane County’s illegal actions have deprived
3
Plaintiff of his Constitutionally-protected rights against:
4

5

a. Taking Property without due process of law; and

6
b. Taking Property without just compensation.
7

8 5. By its conduct as described herein, Spokane County proximately caused the
9
constitutional violations described above.
10
6. By this conduct, Spokane County violated Plaintiff’s federal constitutional and
11
12 statutory rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

13

DAMAGES

14
48. Spokane County’s illegal seizure of money from Mr. Huss and other class
15

16 members proximately caused special damages in the amount of money taken,

17 pre-judgment interest in an amount to be proven at trial, consequential damages

18 in an amount to be proven at trial, and nominal damages.
19
VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
20
21 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff asks this Court to grant the following relief:

22 49.Certify this case as a class action under FRCP 23(b)(2), (3);

23
50.Issue a declaratory judgment, declaring that Defendant’s Resolution 04-0160
24
and RCW 70.48.390 violate Plaintiff’s due process and equal protection rights
25

under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and is unconstitutional;

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 10

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 15 Filed 07/14/2005

1 51.Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the collection of
2
inmate booking fees at the Spokane County Jail pursuant to either Spokane
3
County Resolution 04-0160 or RCW 70.48.390;
4
5 52.Award Plaintiff all special and general damages resulting directly and

6 proximately from Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, in an amount to be
7
determined at trial;
8
53.For all prejudgment and post judgment interest as allowed by law;
9

10 54.Award Plaintiff all reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in connection

11 with this lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, or any other applicable law; and

12
55.For any further or additional relief which the Court finds equitable, appropriate,
13

14

or just.

15

Respectfully submitted this 14th day of July, 2005.

16
CENTER FOR JUSTICE
17

18

s/Breean L. Beggs

WSBA 20795

19

35 W. Main, Suite 300

Spokane, WA 99201
20
E-Mail: Breean@cforjustice.org

21

Attorney for Plaintiff Shawn Huss

22

23

24

25

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 11

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 15 Filed 07/14/2005

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
I hereby certify that on July 14, 2005, I presented the foregoing Amended 3 Complaint to the Clerk of the Court for filing and uploading to the CM/ECF
system which will send notification of such filing to the following:
4

5 Breean Lawrence Beggs breean@cforjustice.org, dbacot@cforjustice.org.

6 James H. Kaufman
7

jkaufman@spokanecounty.org

8

s/Breean L. Beggs
9
WSBA # 20795

10

Center for Justice

35 W. Main, Suite 300

11

Spokane, WA 99201

12

Telephone: (509) 835.5211

Fax: (509) 835.3867

13

E-Mail: Breean@cforjustice.org

14

Attorney for Plaintiff

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 12

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 61 Filed 12/21/2005

1 CENTER FOR JUSTICE BREEAN BEGGS, WSBA 20795
2 35 West Main, Ste. 300 Spokane, WA 99201
3 (509) 835-5211 Attorney for Plaintiffs
4

HON. FRED VAN SICKLE

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7 SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and )

others similarly situated,
8

) Case No.: CV-05-180-FVS )

)

9

Plaintiffs,

) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

) VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS

10

vs.

) ) CLASS ACTION

11 SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal)

corporation,
12

) )

)

13

Defendant.

)

)

14
I. INTRODUCTION
15

16 1.1 This class action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary

17 damages against Defendant SPOKANE COUNTY for violations of the Plaintiff’s,

18 and others similarly situated, civil rights guaranteed under the due process clause
19
of the Fourteenth Amendment, through their jail intake booking fee policy
20
21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. Spokane County’s policy regarding the

22 collection and reimbursement of jail intake fees is illegal in that it violates Mr.
23

24

25 Second Amended Complaint - 1

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 61 Filed 12/21/2005

1 Huss’s, and others similarly situated, clearly established constitutional rights under

2
the Fourteenth Amendment, not to be deprived of property without due process of
3
law. Further, RCW 70.48.390 is facially unconstitutional.
4

5

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6 2.1 This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
7
1331 and 1361, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and 5 U.S.C. § 702.
8
2.2 Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) (2), (e)
9

10 (2)-(3).

11 2.3 This action is brought pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the
12
United States Constitution, RCW 70.48.390, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1988.
13
14 2.4 All acts complained of herein occurred in Spokane County, Washington

15 and/or in the Eastern District of Washington.

16

III. PARTIES

17
3.1 Plaintiff SHAWN HUSS is a single man residing in Spokane County,
18

19 which is within the Eastern District of Washington and he has been a resident of

20 Spokane County at all times relevant herein. He is a real party in interest in this
21
case.
22
3.2 Defendant SPOKANE COUNTY is a political subdivision and/or
23
24 municipal corporation and is located within the Eastern District of Washington.

25 Second Amended Complaint - 2

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 61 Filed 12/21/2005

1

IV. FACTS

2
4.1 On or about May 14, 1999 the Washington legislature passed RCW
3
70.48.390, amending RCW 70.48, which authorized city, county, and regional jails
4

5 to take a $10.00 booking fee from the person of each individual booked. (S.H.B.

6 1143, (1999)).

7

4.2 On or about May 7, 2003 the 58th legislature of Washington amended RCW

8

70.48.390 to allow counties to collect “jail’s actual booking costs or one hundred
9

10 dollars, whichever is less.” (S.H.B. No 1232 (2003)).

11 4.3 On or about November 19, 2003 Lt. Edee Hunt and Tim O’Brien,
12
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney sent a memorandum to the Spokane Board of County
13
14 Commissioners regarding the collection of booking fees.

15 4.4 On or about February 24, 2004 the Spokane County Board of

16 Commissioners passed resolution 04-0160 authorizing the Spokane County Jail to
17
develop and implement a procedure to collect a booking fee from persons booked
18
19 in the Spokane County Jail in accordance with RCW 70.48.390.

20 4.5 The Spokane County Jail adopted a policy which authorizes the
21
collection of an intake fee. Federal inmates are charged the federal daily rate,
22
while non-federal inmates are charged the jail intake fee—$89.12 as of May, 2004.
23
24 4.6 The official policy allows fees to be collected from the inmate’s

25 Second Amended Complaint - 3

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 61 Filed 12/21/2005

1 person at the time of booking. If the person does not have adequate fees on their
2
person at the time of booking, a charge is assessed to the person’s account.
3
4.7 All cash contained on the individual’s person or effects is collected by
4
5 the County and placed into a bank account owned and controlled by the County

6 Jail that is used to benefit Spokane County.
7
4.8 The policy authorizes the County to convert the money collected as a
8
booking fee for the County’s use and benefit without a hearing.
9

10 4.9 The policy does not provide for a pre-deprivation hearing or any other

11 opportunity for the inmate to contest the seizure and conversion of his/her money.
12
4.10 Spokane County adopted a reimbursement policy which places the
13
14 burden on the inmate to prove that criminal charges were dropped or that he was

15 acquitted in order to redeem his funds. Specifically, the policy states “it is your

16 responsibility to provide the proof from the Courts that your charges have been
17
dismissed or you have been acquitted” and that only upon an investigation by the
18
19 Spokane County Jail Staff may the individual receive his funds back.

20 4.11 Captain Collins announced the implementation of this official policy,
21
as described above, effective on or about May 5, 2004.
22
4.12 On or about October 31, 2004, the Plaintiff was arrested based on a
23
24 frivolous domestic violence complaint.

25 Second Amended Complaint - 4

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 61 Filed 12/21/2005

1

4.13 He was taken to the Spokane County Jail.

2
4.14 Upon being booked, his wallet was inventoried as personal property to
3
be returned to him upon release. Unbeknownst to Mr. Huss, Spokane County
4

5 seized $39.30 from Mr. Huss’s wallet and deposited it into a checking account for

6 the County’s use and benefit.
7
4.15 At the time of the property seizure, Spokane County did not inform
8
Mr. Huss that it was charging him a booking fee, that the statute mandated return
9

10 of the fee upon dismissal of charges, nor did they explain to him the process for

11 obtaining a refund.
12
4.16 While in jail Mr. Huss was informed by other inmates that he should
13
14 not expect to get any money back from his wallet back when he was released.

15

4.17 Mr. Huss was subsequently released from the Spokane County Jail

16 after all charges were dropped.
17
4.18 Upon release, his funds were not returned to him.
18

19

4.19 At the time of his release, Mr. Huss was not provided with Spokane

20 County Jail’s Reimbursement Form or any other means to get his funds back.
21
4.20 Mr. Huss lives on a limited income and was dependant on the
22
$39.30 taken from his wallet to feed and provide for his family until his next
23
24 paycheck.

25 Second Amended Complaint - 5

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 61 Filed 12/21/2005

1

4.21 Pursuant to Spokane County’s reimbursement policy, Mr. Huss must

2
waive his rights to due process and other damages in order to redeem his property.
3
4.22 Only after being served with Plaintiff’s notice of claim letter outlining
4

5 the violations of his federal rights did Spokane County refund Mr. Huss’s $39.30.

6

4.23 To date, Defendant Spokane County has not refunded the actual or

7
constructive interest on Mr. Huss's seized money, nor has it compensated him for
8
the consequences of leaving him without sufficient funds to support himself after
9

10 his release from jail.

11

4.24 Upon belief, since May 5, 2004 Spokane County has seized and

12
converted to its own use thousands of dollars from hundreds of inmates at the
13

14 Spokane County Jail under the same procedures used with Mr. Huss; including

15 failure to provide adequate notice and an adequate pre-deprivation hearing.

16

4.25 Upon belief, dozens, if not hundreds, of those inmates were entitled

17
to receive reimbursement of their seized monies and interest after the criminal
18

19 proceedings against them were terminated in their favor.

20

4.26 All actions taken in regard to the seizure and conversion of cash

21
described in the foregoing paragraphs were undertaken according to official
22
County practice and policy as approved by the County Commissioners and other
23

24 policy makers.

25 Second Amended Complaint - 6

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 61 Filed 12/21/2005

1

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

2
5.1 Plaintiff realleges all matters set forth above.
3
5.2 Mr. Huss brings this action on behalf of himself and all others
4

5 similarly situated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b) (2), (3). The Plaintiff

6 provisionally proposes the following class definition:

7
All individuals whose funds have been seized and

8

converted to the County’s use under the Spokane County

Jail’s booking fee policy without a adequate notice and/or
9
hearing, in violation of their due process rights under the

10

law.

11 5.3 This is an appropriate class action because the proposed class is so
12
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
13
14 5.4 There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including

15 whether Defendant’s actions violate Plaintiff’s procedural due process rights under

16 the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
17
5.5 The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class.
18
19 5.6 The named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interest of

20 the class.
21
5.7 The named Plaintiff has available competent counsel with experience
22
in civil rights and prisoners’ rights who is willing and able to protect the interests
23
24 of the class.

25 Second Amended Complaint - 7

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 61 Filed 12/21/2005

1 5.8 The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally

2
applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive
3
relief and monetary damages with respect to the class as a whole.
4

5

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

6 CIVIL RIGHTS — VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
7 6.1 Plaintiff realleges all matters set forth in paragraphs 8 through 41,
8
above.
9
10 6.2 The actions of Defendant Spokane County, complained of above were

11 taken under color of state law. These actions constitute clearly established

12
violations of the Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from the deprivation of
13
property without due process of law.
14
15 6.3 The Defendant’s official intake fee collection policy violates Plaintiff’s

16 rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for several
17
reasons:
18
19 • It does not provide him with adequate notice of the seizure and conversion

20

of his property and his attendant rights;

21 • It does not provide an opportunity to object to the seizure and conversion of
22
his property, and to assert a reason, such as indigent status or exempt source
23

24

25 Second Amended Complaint - 8

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 61 Filed 12/21/2005

1

of funds, that may prevent the County from taking and converting his

2
money;
3
• It does not provide any type of hearing prior to the deprivation of the
4

5

property; and

6 • It impermissibly places the burden on Mr. Huss to get his money back.
7
Furthermore, there are no procedural safeguards guaranteeing that Mr. Huss’s
8
9 property (or anyone else’s) will be returned in the event that he is not charged, or if

10 he is acquitted. Therefore, Spokane County has violated Mr. Huss’s procedural

11 due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
12
6.4 Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201
13
14 that Defendant’s Resolution 04-0160 and RCW 70.48.390 are unconstitutional.

15 6.5 Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction under the
16
traditional equitable criteria: 1) there is a strong likelihood that Plaintiff will
17
succeed on the merits, 2) there is a possibility of irreparable injury to the plaintiff,
18
19 and others similarly situated, if injunctive relief is not granted, and 3) the hardship

20 placed on the Plaintiff by Defendant’s Resolution 04-0160 and RCW 70.48.390
21
outweigh the public interest of maintaining the Defendant’s policy.
22
23 6.6 Defendants acted intentionally, knowingly, and/or with reckless or

24 careless disregard and/or deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

25 Second Amended Complaint - 9

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 61 Filed 12/21/2005

1 6.7 Defendants are liable for damages, costs and attorneys’ fees under 42
2
U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988.
3
6.8 Neither Plaintiff nor other class members were required to exhaust their
4
5 administrative remedies for these 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1988 claims.

6

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

7 6.9 Plaintiff realleges all matters set forth above.

8
6.10 Defendant Spokane County explicitly adopted and implemented a
9

10 policy, custom, or practice permitting its employees to collect booking fees from

11 the person of individuals at the time they are booked without a pre-deprivation

12
hearing pursuant to Spokane County Resolution 04-0160 and RCW 70.48.390.
13
These policies, customs, or practices explicitly allow, condone, ratify, and afford
14
15 the reckless, careless, and erroneous field decisions by its personnel so as to make

16 mistakes or act willfully, wantonly and/or recklessly.
17
6.11 Defendant Spokane County, individually or through its agencies, is a
18
“person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All actions taken by Spokane
19
20 County in relation to the Plaintiff were taken under the color of law.

21

6.12 In violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

22
Constitution, Defendant Spokane County’s illegal actions have deprived Plaintiff
23

24

25 Second Amended Complaint - 10

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 61 Filed 12/21/2005

1 of his Constitutionally-protected rights against deprivation of Property without due
2
process of law.
3
6.13 By its conduct as described herein, Spokane County proximately
4
5 caused the constitutional violations described above.

6

6.14 By this conduct, Spokane County violated Plaintiff’s federal

7
constitutional and statutory rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
8
VI. DAMAGES
9

10

7.1 Spokane County’s illegal seizure and conversion of money from Mr.

11 Huss and other class members proximately caused special damages in the amount
12
of money taken, pre-judgment interest in an amount to be proven at trial,
13
14 consequential damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and nominal damages.

15

VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

16 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff asks this Court to grant the following relief:
17
1. Certify this case as a class action under FRCP 23(b)(2), (3);
18
19 2. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s Resolution 04-0160 and RCW

20

70.48.390 violate Plaintiff’s due process rights under the Fourteenth

21
Amendment and are unconstitutional;
22

23

24

25 Second Amended Complaint - 11

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 61 Filed 12/21/2005

1 3. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the collection of
2
inmate booking fees at the Spokane County Jail pursuant to either Spokane
3
County Resolution 04-0160 and/or RCW 70.48.390;
4
5 4. Award Plaintiff and the class all special and general damages resulting

6

directly and proximately from Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, in an

7
amount to be determined at trial;
8
5. Award Plaintiff and the class all prejudgment and post judgment interest as
9

10

allowed by law;

11 6. Award Plaintiff and the class all reasonable costs and attorney’s fees

12
incurred in connection with this lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, or
13

14

any other applicable law; and

15 7. Award any further or additional relief which the Court finds equitable,

16

appropriate, or just.

17
Respectfully submitted this 21st day of December, 2005.
18
CENTER FOR JUSTICE
19

20

s/Breean L. Beggs

WSBA 20795

21

35 W. Main, Suite 300

22

Spokane, WA 99201

E-Mail: Breean@cforjustice.org

23

Attorney for Plaintiff Shawn Huss

24

25 Second Amended Complaint - 12

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 61 Filed 12/21/2005

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
I hereby certify that on December 21, 2005, I presented the foregoing to the Clerk 3 of the Court for filing and uploading to the CM/ECF system which will send
notification of such filing to the following:
4

5 Breean Lawrence Beggs breean@cforjustice.org, dbacot@cforjustice.org,
jrasler@cforjustice.org
6

7 James H. Kaufman

jkaufman@spokanecounty.org

8 Frank Conklin

fjconklin@yahoo.com

9

10

s/Breean L. Beggs

11

WSBA # 20795

12

Center for Justice

35 W. Main, Suite 300

13

Spokane, WA 99201

14

Telephone: (509) 835.5211

Fax: (509) 835.3867

15

E-Mail: Breean@cforjustice.org

Attorney for Plaintiff
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 Second Amended Complaint - 13

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 62 Filed 12/30/2005

1

HONORABLE FRED VAN SICKLE

2 JAMES H. KAUFMAN WSBA 7836

3 Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
4 1115 West Broadway, 2nd floor

Spokane, WA 99260 5 Phone: (509) 477-5764

6 FAX: (509) 477-3672 Email: jkaufman@spokanecounty.org

7
FRANK CONKLIN WSBA 4325 8 C.K. Powers P.S.

9

818 West Riverside # 640 Spokane, WA 99201

10 Phone: (509) 747-6877 FAX: (509 747-6950
11 Email fjconklin@yahoo.com

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

14 SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and )

others similarly situated

)

15

)

16

Plaintiff

)

)

17 Vs

)

) 18 SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal )

19 Corporation

)

)

20

Defendant

)

Cause No. CV 05 180 FVS
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21
********************
22

23

24
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 1 of 12

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 62 Filed 12/30/2005

1

2

COMES NOW Defendant Spokane County by and through James H.

3 Kaufman, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Frank Conklin and in response

4 to the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, admits,

5
denies, and alleges as follows:
6
I. INTRODUCTION,
7

8

1.1 In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph 1.1 of Plaintiff’s

9 Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County denies that its policy of

10 collection jail intake fees is illegal or violates the due process clause of the XIV

11
Amendment.
12
13

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE:

14

2.1 In answer to the allegations contained in paragraphs 2.1 through 2.4 of

15 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County admits the

16 same.

17

III. PARTIES

18
3.1 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 3.1 of Plaintiff’s
19

Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County is without knowledge or
20

21 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations therefore

22 denies the same.

23

24
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 2 of 12

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 62 Filed 12/30/2005

1

3.2 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 3.1 of Plaintiff’s

2 Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County admits it is a political

3
subdivision but denies that it is a municipal corporation.
4
IV. FACTS
5

6

4.1 In answer the allegations contained in paragraphs 4.1 through 4.6 of

7 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County admits the

8 same.

9

4.2 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 4.7 of Plaintiff’s

10
Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County denies the same.
11

4.3 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 4.8 of Plaintiff’s
12

13 Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County denies that the collection

14 of a fee or tax constitutes a conversion of the property of the taxpayer.

15

4.4 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 4.9 of Plaintiff’s

16
Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County admits that there is no
17
“pre-deprivation” hearing before the fee is collected but denies the remainder of
18

19 the allegations in that paragraph.

20

4.5 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 4.10 of Plaintiff’s

21 Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County denies the allegations in
22
this paragraph, in so far as that policy was modified before this litigation was
23
commenced.
24
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 3 of 12

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 62 Filed 12/30/2005

1

4.6 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 4.11 of Plaintiff’s

2 Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County admits the same.
3
4.7 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 4.12 of Plaintiff’s
4
Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County admits the Defendant
5
6 was arrested but denies that the domestic violence complaint was frivolous.

7

4.8. In answer the allegations contained in paragraphs 4.13 and 4.14 of

8 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County admits the

9 same and specifically admits that at the time he was incarcerated the funds he had
10
upon his person were lawfully taken and applied to his obligation to pay the
11
booking fee.
12

13

4.9 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 4.15 of Plaintiff’s

14 Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County admits there was no

15 formal explanation of return of the fee, but otherwise denies the remainder of the
16
same.
17
4.10 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 4.16 of Plaintiff’s
18
19 Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County is without knowledge or

20 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and therefore

21 denies the same.
22

23

24
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 4 of 12

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 62 Filed 12/30/2005

1

4.11 In answer the allegations contained in paragraphs 4.17 and 4.18 of

2 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County admits the
3
same.
4
4.12 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 4.19 of Plaintiff’s
5
6 Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County admits the allegations of

7 this paragraph with the caveat that unlike the vast majority of persons similarly

8 situated, Mr. Huss did not promptly request that his money be returned when the
9 charges were dropped, but waited nearly three (3) months to submit his request.
10
4.13 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 4.20 of Plaintiff’s
11
Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County is without knowledge or
12
13 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and therefore

14 denies the same.

15

4.14 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 4.21 of Plaintiff’s

16
Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County denies the same.
17
4.15 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 4.22 of Plaintiff’s
18

19 Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County admits that as soon as it

20 received a request from Mr. Huss, Spokane County promptly refunded his deposit.

21

4.16 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 4.23 of Plaintiff’s

22
Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County admits it has not
23
refunded “constructive trust”, because the legislature has not required interest to be
24
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 5 of 12

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 62 Filed 12/30/2005

1 paid on authorized refunds of booking fees. Spokane County admits it has not

2 compensated Mr. Huss for being out of jail, and denies it has any obligation to do

3
so.
4
5

4.17 In answer the allegations contained in paragraphs 4.24, 4.25 and 4.26

6 of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County denies the

7 same.

8

V. CLASS ALLEGATIONS

9

5.1 Defendant Spokane County realleges each and every previous answer as

10
if fully set forth herein.
11

5.2 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 5.2 of Plaintiff’s
12

13 Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County is without knowledge or

14 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and therefore

15 denies the same. Moreover, Spokane County denies that any funds were
16
wrongfully converted.
17
5.3 In answer the allegations contained in paragraphs 5.3 through 5.8 of
18
19 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County denies the

20 same.

21

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

22

6.1 Defendant Spokane County realleges each and every previous answer as

23
if fully set forth herein.
24
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 6 of 12

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 62 Filed 12/30/2005

1

6.2 In answer the allegations contained in paragraphs 6.2 through 6.8 of

2 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County denies the

3
same.
4
5

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

6

6.3 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 6.9 of Plaintiff’s

7 Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County realleges each and every

8 previous answer as if fully set forth herein.

9

6.4 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 6.10 of Plaintiff’s

10
Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County denies the same.
11

6.5 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 6.11 through 6.14 of
12

13 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County denies the

14 same.

15

VII. DAMAGES

16
7.1 In answer the allegations contained in paragraph 7.1 of Plaintiff’s
17
Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Spokane County denies the same.
18

19

VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

20

Spokane County denies that Plaintiff is entitled to relief because his entire

21 claim and other legal contentions therein are not warranted by existing law or by a
22
nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law
23
or the establishment of new law. Moreover, his fundamental allegations and other
24
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 7 of 12

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 62 Filed 12/30/2005

1 factual contentions are entirely lacking in evidentiary support and this entire

2 lawsuit is brought only to needlessly increase the cost of litigation and burden the

3
taxpayers with the cost of responding to these frivolous contentions.
4
COUNTER STATEMENT OF THE CASE
5

6

RCW 70.48.390 Fee payable by person being booked provides:

7

A governing unit may require that each person who is booked at a

city, county, or regional jail pay a fee based on the jail’s actual

8

booking costs or one hundred dollars, whichever is less, to the

9

sheriff’s department of the county or police chief of the city in which the jail is located. The fee is payable immediately from any money

10

then possessed by the person being booked, or any money deposited

with the sheriff’s department or city jail administration on the

11

person’s behalf. If the person has no funds at the time of booking or

during the period of incarceration, the sheriff or police chief may

12

notify the court in the county or city where the charges related to the

13

booking are pending, and may request the assessment of the fee.

Unless the person is held on other criminal matters, if the person is not

14

charged, is acquitted, or if all charges are dismissed, the sheriff or

police chief shall return the fee to the person at the last known address

15

listed in the booking records.

16
The following facts are not in dispute:
17
1) Mr. Huss was booked into the Spokane County Jail on October 31,
18

19 2004 and released the following day, November 1, 2004.

20

2) At the time of his booking, the established booking fee for non-federal

21 prisoners was $89.12.
22
3) Mr. Huss had $39.30 taken from him at the time of his booking.
23

24
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 8 of 12

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 62 Filed 12/30/2005

1

4) At the time Mr. Huss was booked, the procedure in place at the jail

2 was to wait until the inmate requested any return of money taken from him to pay
3
for booking fees.
4
5) This policy was changed prior to the filing of this litigation and the
5
6 present policy is to automatically return any money taken to pay for booking fees if

7 the person qualifies for the legislative refund.

8

6) As of January 6, 2005, those who are booked and released and have

9 paid all or a portion of the $89.12 fee but are not charged within 72 hours,
10
automatically, and without request, have any sum they have paid for their booking
11
fees returned.
12

13

7) The intake or booking fee is also automatically refunded to those

14 found not guilty, or the charges dismissed and where prosecution is declined.

15

8) The Legislature does not require Spokane County to pay interest on

16
any sums taken to pay for booking fees when and if the person qualifies for a
17
refund.
18

19

9) After receiving a request from Mr. Huss in February, 2005, his funds

20 were returned to him by check dated 2/23/005.

21

10) On September 11, 2001, the Spokane County Board of

22
Commissioners, adopted a new procedure and designated Spokane County Risk
23

24
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 9 of 12

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 62 Filed 12/30/2005

1 Manager or his/her designee as the agent appointed by Spokane County to receive

2 any claims made against Spokane County.
3
Spokane County further alleges:
4
1) The booking fee is a financial exaction or tax, enacted pursuant to the
5
6 comprehensive taxing power of the State, which becomes due and payable when

7 any person is booked into jail.

8

2) This fee is not a punishment, but an admissions tax enacted for the

9 sole purpose of compensating the County for the actual expense of booking
10
persons into custody.
11
3) Under both Washington Law, and the United States Constitution,
12

13 Spokane County has every legal right to retain any funds which legally come into

14 the possession of Spokane County, to pay this admission fee when an inmate is

15 booked into jail.

16
4) The collection of this tax does not implicate the procedural due
17
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
18

19

Wherefore, Spokane County, having fully answered, requests this Court to

20 dismiss Plaintiff’s cause with prejudice and to award Spokane County attorney fees

21

22

23

24
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 10 of 12

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 62 Filed 12/30/2005

1 in order to reimburse the public for the needless cost of this litigation.

2

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of December, 2005

3

4 /s/ James H. Kaufman

JAMES H. KAUFMAN WSBA 7836 5 Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

6

Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office 1115 West Broadway, 2nd floor

7 Spokane, WA 99260

Phone: (509) 477-5764

8 FAX: (509) 477-3672

9 Email: jkaufman@spokanecounty.org

10
/s/ Frank Conklin 11 FRANK CONKLIN WSBA 4325
C.K. Powers P.S. 12 818 West Riverside # 640
13 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 747-6877
14 FAX: (509) 747-6950
Email fjconklin@yahoo.com
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 11 of 12

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 62 Filed 12/30/2005

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on December 30, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing

3
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which will send notification to
4
the following: Breean Lawrence Beggs and Frank Conklin.
5

6

7

/s/ James H. Kaufman

8

JAMES H. KAUFMAN, WSBA #7836

9

Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office

10

1115 W. Broadway – 2nd Floor

Spokane, WA 99201

11

Phone: (509) 477-5764

Facsimile: (509) 477-3672

12

jkaufman@spokanecounty.org

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 12 of 12

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 27 Filed 11/22/2005

1 CENTER FOR JUSTICE BREEAN BEGGS, WSBA # 20795
2 35 West Main, Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99201
3 (509) 835-5211 Attorney for Plaintiffs
4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7
SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and 8 others similarly situated,

9
Plaintiff,

10

vs.

11 SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal corporation,
12

13

Defendant.

14

) ) Case No.: CV-05-180-FVS ) ) ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ) PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ) ) CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION ) PENDING ) ) ) ) )

15
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, SHAWN HUSS, by and through his attorney,
16
17 BREEAN BEGGS and respectfully requests that this Court grant his motion for

18 partial summary judgment on liability.
19
This motion is made pursuant to FRCP 56(a), (c). Pursuant to FRCP 56(c)
20
“[t]he judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if … there are no genuine
21
22 issues as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as

23 a matter of law.” Summary judgment may be issued on liability alone even there is
24
a genuine issue as to the amount of damages. Id. The Defendant’s booking fee
25

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

CENTER FOR JUSTICE 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 27 Filed 11/22/2005

1 policy and R.C.W. 70.48.390 are facially unconstitutional in that they allowed the
2
Defendant to deprive the Plaintiff of his money without even a modicum of a
3
hearing in violation of his constitutionally protected rights under the Fourteenth
4
5 Amendment of the Unites States Constitution. Because there are no issues of

6 material fact in contention, the Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on

7
liability as a matter of law.
8

9

This motion is supported by the attached documents:

10

Statement of Undisputed Facts

11

Memorandum of Authorities

12
and the following documents previously filed with the court on July 14, 2005:
13

14

Declaration of Breean L. Beggs (Docket No. 7)

15
16
/
17
/
18
19 /

Declaration of Shawn Huss, proposed class representative (Docket No. 8).

20 /
21
/
22
/
23
24 /

25 /

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2

CENTER FOR JUSTICE 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 27 Filed 11/22/2005

1

Therefore, Mr. Huss respectfully requests that this Court grant his motion for

2
partial summary judgment as a matter of law and award him attorney’s fees on this
3
motion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1988.
4

5

DATED this 22nd day of November, 2005.

6

CENTER FOR JUSTICE

7
s/Breean L. Beggs

8

WSBA # 20795

9

35 W. Main, Suite 300

Spokane, WA 99201

10

Telephone: (509) 835.5211

Fax: (509) 835.3867

11

E-Mail: Breean@cforjustice.org

12

Attorney for Plaintiff Shawn Huss

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3

CENTER FOR JUSTICE 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 27 Filed 11/22/2005

1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
3 I hereby certify that on November 22, 2005, I presented the foregoing Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to the Clerk of the Court for filing and
4 uploading to the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the 5 following:

6 Breean Lawrence Beggs breean@cforjustice.org, dbacot@cforjustice.org, jrasler@cforjustice.org
7

8
James H. Kaufman
9

jkaufman@spokanecounty.org

10

11

s/Breean L. Beggs

12

WSBA # 20795

Center for Justice

13

35 W. Main, Suite 300

Spokane, WA 99201
14
Telephone: (509) 835.5211

15

Fax: (509) 835.3867

E-Mail: Breean@cforjustice.org

16

Attorney for Plaintiff

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4

CENTER FOR JUSTICE 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 29 Filed 11/22/2005

1 CENTER FOR JUSTICE BREEAN BEGGS, WSBA # 20795
2 35 West Main, Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99201
3 (509) 835-5211 Attorney for Plaintiffs
4

HON. FRED VAN SICKEL

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7
SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and )

8 others similarly situated,

) Case No.: CV-05-180-FVS )

9

Plaintiffs,

) ) STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN

10

vs.

) SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ) PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11

) SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal ) CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION

12 corporation.

) PENDING )

13

Defendant.

) )

14

)

)

15
1. On or about May 14, 1999, the Washington legislature passed RCW
16

17 70.48.390, amending RCW 70.48, which authorized city, county, and regional jails

18 to take a $10.00 booking fee from the person of each individual booked. (SHB

19 1143 (1999).) See Ex. A, attached to the Dec. of Breean Beggs in Support (Docket

20
No. 7).
21

22

2. On or about May 7, 2003, the 58th legislature of Washington amended RCW

23 70.48.390 to allow jails to increase the booking fee to their actual booking cost or

24
$100.00, whichever is less. (SHB 1232 (2003).) RCW 70.48.390. Id.

25 Statement of Undisputed Facts - 1

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201

(509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 29 Filed 11/22/2005

1 3. RCW 70.48.390 provides:

2
A governing unit may require that each person who is booked at a

3

city, county, or regional jail pay a fee based on the jail's actual

booking costs or one hundred dollars, whichever is less, to the

4

sheriff's department of the county or police chief of the city in which

5

the jail is located. The fee is payable immediately from any money

then possessed by the person being booked, or any money

6

deposited with the sheriff's department or city jail

7

administration on the person's behalf. If the person has no funds at

the time of booking or during the period of incarceration, the sheriff

8

or police chief may notify the court in the county or city where the

charges related to the booking are pending, and may request the
9
assessment of the fee. Unless the person is held on other criminal

10

matters, if the person is not charged, is acquitted, or if all charges are

dismissed, the sheriff or police chief shall return the fee to the person

11

at the last known address listed in the booking records.

12
RCW 70.48.390 (emphasis added).
13

14 4. The statute does not provide any provision for either a pre- or post-

15 deprivation hearing before the individual is deprived of his or her money. Id.

16 5. On or about November 19, 2003, Lt. Edee Hunt and Tim O’Brien, Spokane
17
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, sent a memorandum to the Spokane Board of
18
19 County Commissioners regarding the collection of booking fees. Id.

20 6. On or about February 24, 2004, the Spokane County Board of
21
Commissioners passed resolution 04-0160 which authorizes the Spokane County
22
Jail to develop and implement a procedure to collect a booking fee from persons
23
24 booked in the Spokane County Jail in accordance with RCW 70.48.390. Id.

25 Statement of Undisputed Facts - 2

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 29 Filed 11/22/2005

1 7. Pursuant to Spokane County Resolution 04-0160, the Spokane County Jail
2
adopted an official policy authorizing the collection of an intake fee. Inmates are
3
charged the actual jail booking cost, calculated at $89.12 as of May, 2004. See
4
5 Ex. A and B, Dec. of Beggs (Docket No. 7).

6 8. The official policy allows fees to be taken directly from the person of the
7
inmate at the time of booking. If the person does not have adequate fees on his or
8
her person at the time of booking, a charge is assessed to the person’s account.
9

10 9. Spokane’s policy does not provide for a pre-deprivation hearing or any other

11 opportunity for the inmate to contest the seizure of his/her money. Nor does
12
Spokane County have any policy in place to determine whether the funds are
13
14 exempt public benefits or the property of a third party. Id.

15 10. Spokane adopted a reimbursement policy that places the burden on the

16 inmate to prove that the charges were dropped or that he was acquitted in order to
17
redeem his funds. Specifically, the policy states “… it is your responsibility to
18
19 provide the proof from the Courts that your charges have been dismissed or you

20 have been acquitted” and that only upon an investigation by the Spokane County
21
Jail Staff may the individual receive his/her funds back. (emphasis added). See Ex.
22
C, Dec. of Beggs (Docket No. 7).
23
24 11. Neither Spokane County’s booking fee policy, nor RCW 70.48.390 provide

25 Statement of Undisputed Facts - 3

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 29 Filed 11/22/2005

1 means for individuals to redeem any interest generated on their confiscated funds.
2
Id.; R.C.W. 70.48.390.
3
12. Prior to enacting its booking fee, Spokane County contacted at least five
4
5 other Washington counties to research how they implemented RCW 70.48.390.

6 See Ex. D, Dec. of Beggs (Docket No. 7). At least one county chose not to
7
implement a booking fee because of potential constitutional conflicts; several other
8
counties had enacted booking fee policies that were clearly illegal because they did
9

10 not return the money if the person was not convicted. Id.

11 13. The official booking fee policy number 2.00.00, as described above, was
12
implemented on May 5, 2004. See Ex. B, Dec. of Beggs (Docket No. 7).
13
14 14. On or about October 31, 2004, Plaintiff Shawn Huss was arrested based on

15 a frivolous domestic violence complaint. See Exhibit A, attached to the

16 Declaration of Shawn Huss in Support (Docket No. 8).
17
15. He was taken to the Spokane County Jail. Dec. of Huss (Docket No. 8).
18
19 16. Upon being booked, his wallet was inventoried as personal property that

20 would be returned to him upon release. Unbeknownst to Mr. Huss, Spokane
21
County seized $39.20 from Mr. Huss’s wallet for the County’s use and benefit. Id.
22
17. This was all of the money in Mr. Huss’ wallet and all that he had to provide
23
24 for himself and his family until his next paycheck. Id.

25 Statement of Undisputed Facts - 4

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 29 Filed 11/22/2005

1 18. At the time of the property seizure, Spokane County did not inform Mr.
2
Huss that it was charging him a booking fee, that the statute mandated return of the
3
fee upon dismissal of charges, or the process for obtaining a refund. Id.
4
5 19. Mr. Huss was released from the Spokane County Jail the next day, and all

6 charges were dropped. Id., Ex. A (Docket No. 8).
7
20. Upon release his funds were not returned to him, nor was he provided with
8
Spokane County Jail’s Reimbursement Form or any other means to get his funds
9

10 back. Dec. Huss (Docket No. 8).

11 21. Mr. Huss lives on a limited income and was dependant on the $39.20 to
12
feed and provide for his family until his next paycheck.. Id.
13
14 22. Pursuant to Spokane County’s reimbursement policy in place at the time

15 Mr. Huss was booked, Mr. Huss must waive his rights to any due process in order

16 to redeem his money. See Ex. C, Dec. of Beggs (Docket No. 7). Spokane County
17
refunded Mr. Huss’s money only after receiving notice that Mr. Huss intended to
18
19 initiate this action.

20 23. To date, Defendant has not refunded the interest on Mr. Huss’s seized
21
money or compensated him for the deprivation of his constitutional rights. Dec.
22
Huss (Docket No. 8).
23
24 24. Upon belief, since May 5, 2004, Spokane County has seized hundreds of

25 Statement of Undisputed Facts - 5

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 29 Filed 11/22/2005

1 thousands of dollars from thousands of inmates at the Spokane County Jail under
2
the same procedure used with Mr. Huss, including failure to provide an adequate
3
pre-deprivation hearing.
4
5 Dated this 22nd day of November, 2005.

6

s/Breean L. Beggs

7

WSBA # 20795

Center for Justice

8

35 W. Main, Suite 300

Spokane, WA 99201
9
Telephone: (509) 835.5211

10

Fax: (509) 835.3867

E-Mail: Breean@cforjustice.org
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 Statement of Undisputed Facts - 6

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 29 Filed 11/22/2005

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
I hereby certify that on November 22, 2005, I presented the foregoing to the Clerk 3 of the Court for filing and uploading to the CM/ECF system which will send
notification of such filing to the following:
4

5 Breean Lawrence Beggs breean@cforjustice.org, dbacot@cforjustice.org,
jrasler@cforjustice.org
6

7
James H. Kaufman
8

jkaufman@spokanecounty.org

9
s/Breean L. Beggs

10

WSBA # 20795

Center for Justice

11

35 W. Main, Suite 300

12

Spokane, WA 99201

Telephone: (509) 835.5211

13

Fax: (509) 835.3867

14

E-Mail: Breean@cforjustice.org

Attorney for Plaintiff

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 Statement of Undisputed Facts - 7

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 835-5211

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1 CENTER FOR JUSTICE BREEAN BEGGS
2 35 West Main, Ste. 300 Spokane, WA 99201
3 (509) 835-5211 Attorney for Plaintiffs
4

HON. FRED VAN SICKLE

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7 SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and )

others similarly situated,
8

) Case No.: CV-05-180-FVS )

)

9

Plaintiffs,

) PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF

) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

10

vs.

) MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

) JUDGMENT

11 SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal )

corporation,

) CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION

12

) PENDING

13

Defendant.

) )

)

14

)

15
I. INTRODUCTION
16
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Shawn Huss, on his own behalf and on behalf
17
18 of the class of similarly situated individuals from whom an intake fee was seized

19 by Spokane County without due process of law. Plaintiff requests that this Court

20
find that Spokane County’s official booking fee policy and RCW 70.48.390 are
21
facially unconstitutional in that they unlawfully allow Spokane County to deprive
22
23 persons of their property without due process of law in violation of their rights

24 under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff has filed a

25
Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 1

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1 motion to certify the class which is pending before this Court.

2
II. FACTS
3
The Plaintiff has filed a separate statement of undisputed facts concurrently
4
with this motion as required by Local Rule (“LR”) 56.
5

6

III. ANALYSIS

7

Summary judgment is proper if the movant demonstrates that there is "no

8
genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
9
matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). While the party moving for summary
10

11 judgment has the initial burden to show the absence of a genuine issue concerning

12 any material fact, once that party’s burden is met, the burden shifts to the non-
13
moving party to establish existence of an issue of fact regarding an element
14
15 essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof

16 at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986); Adickes v. S.H.

17 Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159 (1970). Even in the light most favorable to the
18
Defendant, there are no material facts in dispute and because reasonable minds can
19
20 only reach one conclusion, the Plaintiff is entitled to a finding of liability under 42

21 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Defendant for the illegal deprivation of his property

22
without due process of law in violation of his constitutionally protected rights.
23
/
24

25 /
Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 2

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1 A. SPOKANE COUNTY’S OFFICIAL BOOKING FEE POLICY AND

2

RCW 70.48.390 ARE FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND

MUST BE STRUCK DOWN.

3

The Defendant’s official booking fee policy, enacted pursuant to Spokane
4

5 County Resolution 04-0160 as authorized by RCW. 70.48.390, is facially

6 unconstitutional in that it allows Spokane County to deprive the Plaintiff, and
7
others similarly situated, of their property without due process of law in violation
8
of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
9

10

A statute may be found to be unconstitutional on its face or unconstitutional

11 as applied. City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wash.2d 664, 668-69, 91 P.3d 875,
12
878 (2004). A statute is rendered facially unconstitutional if it cannot be
13
14 constitutionally applied under any circumstance. Wash. State Republican Party v.

15 Wash. State Pub. Disclosure Comm’n, 141 Wash.2d 245, 282, 4 P.3d 808 (2000).

16 A statute which is found to be facially unconstitutional is rendered totally
17
inoperative. In re Det. of Turay, 139 Wash.2d 379, 417, 986 P.2d 790 (1999).
18

19

Alternatively, a statute may be found unconstitutional as-applied, if it is

20 found to be unconstitutional in the specific context alleged by the party. Id.
21
“Holding a statute unconstitutional as-applied prohibits future application of the
22
statute in a similar context, but the statute is not totally invalidated.” Wash. State
23
24 Republican Party, 141 Wash.2d at 282, 4. P.3d 808.

25
Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 3

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1

The general rule is that if a portion of a statute is found to be invalid, the

2
entire statute will be struck down unless the invalid portion is severable and it can
3
be reasonably believed that the legislature would have passed the one without the
4

5 other, or unless the elimination of the invalid part would render the remainder of

6 the act incapable of accomplishing the legislative purpose. State ex rel. Distilled
7
Spirits Institute, Inc. v. Kinnear, 80 Wash.2d 175, 176-177, 492 P.2d 1012,
8
1013 (1972) (citing Boeing Co. v. State, 74 Wash.2d 82, 442 P.2d 970 (1968));
9

10 Hogue v. Port of Seattle, 54 Wash.2d 799, 341 P.2d 171 (1959)).

11

It is well established that the power of the legislature to enact all reasonable

12
laws is plenary except where it is prohibited, either expressly or by inference, by
13

14 the state or federal constitution; this power extends not only to scope of laws

15 enacted, but also to procedural means incident to their enactment. Kinnear, 80

16 Wash.2d at 183, 492 P.2d at 1016; see also Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish
17
County v. Taxpayers and Ratepayers of Snohomish County, 78 Wash.2d 724, 728-
18
19 29, 479 P.2d 61 (1978) (“[the] state constitution is not a grant of, but limit on, the

20 legislature's law-making power;” and courts may find restriction on legislative

21
authority where it is expressly or fairly implied in wording of the federal or state
22
constitution).
23

24

Spokane County’s booking fee policy and RCW 70.48.390 are facially

25
Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 4

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1 unconstitutional in that they deprive individuals of their property without due
2
process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
3
Constitution. The statute is wholly unconstitutional on its face because the
4
5 deprivation of property from any person without a hearing is per se

6 unconstitutional. Without the ability to seize money from a person without a
7
hearing, the statute’s entire purpose is frustrated. Because Washington courts do
8
not allow an otherwise unconstitutional statute to be saved by reading
9

10 constitutional requirements into it that are not there, Spokane’s booking fee policy

11 and RCW 70.48.390 are constitutionally deficient and must be struck down in their
12
entirety. See Olympic Forest Products v. Chausse Corp., 82 Wash. 2d 418, 434,
13
14 511 P.2d 1002 (1973).

15 B. THE STATUTE VIOLATES MR. HUSS’S RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
16

17

Procedural due process issues arise when a person is deprived of life, liberty,

18 or property without due process of law. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV. The due
19
process clause has been divided into two prongs: substantive and procedural.
20
21 Substantive due process guards against arbitrary and capricious government

22 actions while procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be

23 heard prior a deprivation of life, liberty, or property.

24
Procedural due process questions are examined in two steps: first, whether a
25

Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 5

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1 liberty or property interest exists and has been interfered with by the state, and
2
second, whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were
3
constitutionally sufficient. Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, 490
4
5 U.S. 454, 460, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 1909, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989). The “fundamental

6 requirement of [procedural] due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a
7
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.
8
319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380
9

10 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965)). Matthews established a

11 three-part test for evaluating whether procedural safeguards are sufficient by taking

12
into account the following factors:
13

14

First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action;

second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through

15

the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or

substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s

16

interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and

17

administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural

requirement would entail.
18

19 Redmond, 151 Wash.2d at 669, 91 P.3d at 669 (quoting Matthews, 424 U.S.

20 at 335).
21
It is well established that, absent exigent circumstances, both real and
22
personal property may not be seized without due process of law. In Redmond, the
23
24 Washington Supreme Court held that laws which deprived persons of their driver’s

25
Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 6

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1 licenses without a hearing were invalid under Matthews in that they deprived
2
persons of a private interest without due process of law. Redmond, 151 Wash.2d
3
at 677, 91 P.3d at 882. The Court mandated a pre-deprivation hearing even though
4
5 the vast majority of suspensions were deemed to be appropriate.

6

In Tri-State Development, Ltd. v. Johnston, 160 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 1998),

7
the Ninth Circuit held that RCW 6.25.070, which allowed for a pre-judgment writ
8
of attachment to real property without prior notice or a hearing, was facially
9

10 unconstitutional in that it violated due process. Even though the statute provided

11 prompt notice of the seizure and the right to an early post-deprivation hearing, the
12
Court found that it failed the Matthews test. Id. at 531. The U.S. Supreme Court
13
14 has established a long line of cases, both pre-and-post Matthews, overruling

15 statutes because they lacked sufficient safeguards to protect individual due process

16 rights. E.g., U.S. v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 114 S.Ct 492,
17
126 L.Ed 490 (1993) (invalidating a federal government seizure of real property
18
19 due to its connection with a drug crime); North Georgia Finishing Inc. v. Di-Chem,

20 Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975) (invalidating a Georgia
21
garnishment statute for lack of due process); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92
22
S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed. 556 (1972) (overturning the prejudgment replevin laws of
23
24 Florida and Pennsylvania).

25
Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 7

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1

1. Mr. Huss has a strong property interest in his personal funds.

2
Applying the Matthews test to the present case reveals that Spokane
3
County’s booking fee policy and RCW 70.48.390 are constitutionally deficient in
4

5 that they allow the municipality to deprive individuals of an essential property

6 right without due process of law. The first factor requires identification of the
7
nature and weight of the private interest affected by the official action challenged.
8
A person has a substantial property right in his or her personal money. Perhaps no
9

10 other piece of property is more essential to providing basic food and shelter for

11 one’s self and one’s family. Without money a person cannot pay his or her rent or
12
mortgage, purchase food, pay for gasoline, or pay for public transportation. Under
13
14 Spokane County’s booking fee policy, the jail’s booking agent was able to empty

15 the Plaintiff’s wallet, leaving the Plaintiff without recourse until he was able to

16 prove that the charges against him had been dropped or that he had been acquitted.
17
By that time it was too late as the damage had been done. As the Court stated in
18
19 North Georgia Finishing, “…a bank account [is] surely a form of property…;” 419

20 U.S. at 606. Surely, an individual’s personal funds found in his or her wallet is
21
equally important.
22
Several cases have found a protected property interest in both an inmate’s
23
24 funds voluntarily placed in a trust account and in the interest generated on those

25
Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 8

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1 funds. In Tellis v. Godinez, 5 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir. 1993), the Court held that an
2
inmate had a recognizable property interest in the interest earned on the funds in
3
his “personal property fund” and that the money earned must be credited to the
4
5 fund. The Ninth Circuit broadened the Tellis rule in Schneider v. California

6 Department of Corrections, holding that there was a recognizable property interest
7
in “all” of the interest earned on an inmate’s trust account. 151 F.3d 1194, 1200-
8
01 (9th Cir. 1998). The Washington Supreme Court adopted a similar approach in
9

10 Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wash.2d 12, 35-36, 18 P.3d 523, 536 (2001) (holding that an

11 inmate possesses a property interest in the interest earned on his inmate trust

12
account which cannot be taken without just compensation).
13

14

In each of the above cases the property was voluntarily placed in an inmate

15 trust account. Meanwhile, in this case, Plaintiff’s property was seized from his

16 person without consent and without even a modicum of a hearing. Absent a
17
hearing, an individual is without a chance to object to the seizure of his property,
18
19 nor is there a method of determining whether the money is being rightfully taken

20 or is exempt in that it derives from public benefits or is the property of a third

21
party. Thus, a substantial risk exists that individuals, such as Mr. Huss, will be
22
wrongly deprived of their property.
23

24

In consideration of the importance of the property interest which Mr. Huss

25
Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 9

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1 and other individuals are deprived of through Spokane County’s booking fee
2
policy, we can look at the rules regulating collection on judgments and
3
garnishment. Funds which derive from public benefits—SSA, SSI, and TANF—
4
5 are exempt from garnishment because these funds are needed to provide the

6 necessary life support for an individual and his/her family. 42 U.S.C. § 407; see
7
also RCW 6.27.150 (exempting up to seventy-five percent of a person’s income
8
from garnishment; RCW 6.15.040 (exempting community property from
9

10 garnishment). Under these provisions a person who is subject to collection under a

11 judgment is protected in that he/she will not be left without the means to house and
12
feed himself/herself and his/her family.
13
14 Spokane County did not consider any of this in regard to Mr. Huss. He was

15 stripped of all the money on his person, leaving him with nothing until his next

16 paycheck. These statutes alone provide evidence of the substantial weight this
17
Court should apply to Mr. Huss’s property interest in his own money.
18
19 Additionally, “[t]he duration of any potentially wrongful deprivation of a property

20 interest is an important factor in assessing the impact of official action on the
21
private interest involved.” Redmond, 151 Wash.2d at 671, 91 P.3d at 879 (quoting
22
Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 12, 99 S.Ct. 2612 (1979)). Like in Redmond,
23
24 Spokane County’s policy leaves the individual to his or her own devices in

25
Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 10

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1 requesting that their property be returned. Id. (“[t]he public is left to its own
2
devices to secure a timely hearing from a court to reverse the error.”) Pursuant to
3
Spokane County’s booking fee policy and application of RCW 70.48.390, an
4
5 individual who has been unlawfully deprived of his or her money must petition the

6 County and prove that the charges against him have been dropped, or that he has
7
been acquitted in order to receive his property back. This process could potentially
8
take months, especially if the case goes to trial. Meanwhile, Spokane County is
9

10 able to receive the interest generated by the confiscated funds and no part of the

11 statute requires the return of such interest. In analyzing a due process case, once a
12
protected property interest is found, the Court must decide what process is due as a
13
14 matter of law. Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1523 (9th Cir. 1984); Belnap v.

15 Chang, 707 F.2d 1100, 1002 (9th Cir. 1983).

16

2. Spokane County erroneously deprived Mr. Huss of his personal

17

funds without due process of law.

18

The second Matthews factor is the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the

19
interest at stake through the procedures used and the probable value, if any, of
20

21 additional or substitute safeguards. Redmond, 151 Wash.2d at 672, 91 P.3d at 879

22 (citing Warner v. Trombetta, 348 F.Supp. 1068 (M.D.PA. 1972), aff’d 410 U.S.

23 919, 93 S.Ct. 1392, 35 L.Ed.2583 (1973)). The central holding in both Redmond

24
and Warner stressed that the “possibility exists that error in a conviction record
25

Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 11

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1 could result in the revocation of the license of an innocent motorist.” Id. Under
2
the situations posed in each case, the respective Courts found that the lack of
3
essential due process and the opportunity for some sort of meaningful hearing prior
4
5 to the revocation of an operator’s license violated due process.

6

As the statutes at issue in Warner and Redmond subjected the drivers to an

7
unreasonable risk of error, Spokane County’s booking fee policy and RCW
8
70.48.390 also subject individuals to deprivation of property without any due
9

10 process whatsoever. Spokane County’s policy of seizing cash for intake booking

11 fees violates Mr. Huss’s right to use of his personal property. First, it does not
12
provide him with an opportunity to object to the deprivation of his property and to
13
14 assert a reason, such as indigent status or its source as government benefits or any

15 other exemption outlined above, that would prevent the County from taking his

16 money. Second, the County does not provide any type of hearing prior to taking
17
the property and then places the burden on the individual (Mr. Huss) to get his
18
19 money back. Third, there are no procedural safeguards guaranteeing that Mr.

20 Huss’s property will be returned in the event that that he is not charged or is
21
acquitted. Thus, the risk of erroneously depriving an individual of his property is
22
unreasonably high.
23
24 /

25
Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 12

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1

3. Mr. Huss’ strong interest in his personal funds significantly

2

outweighs the Defendant’s parochially conceived welfare.

3

Finally, the third Matthews factor requires consideration of the State’s

4 interest in the fiscal and administrative burden that additional or substitute
5
procedural requirements would entail. Nguyen v. Dep’t of Health Med. Quality
6
7 Assurance Comm’n, 144 Wash.2d 516, 532, 29 P.3d 689 (2001). In Redmond, the

8 Court explained why a mandatory hearing was essential prior to depriving an

9
individual of their driver’s license: “[t]he hearing requirement is for the benefit of
10
the few, [like Mr. Huss], who should not have had their money seized.” 151
11
12 Wash.2d at 677, 91 P.3d at 882. The fact that providing hearings for the several

13 hundred thousand license suspensions each year would be expensive or onerous

14
was not sufficient to create an exception to the hearing requirement. Id.
15

16

In U.S. v. Good, the Court explained that “the purpose of an adversary

17 hearing is to ensure the requisite neutrality that must inform all governmental

18 decision making. That protection is of particular importance where … [as here] …
19
the Government has a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceeding.”
20
21 510 U.S. at 56-67 (citing Hermelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 979 (1991)

22 (opinion of Scalia, J.) (“it makes sense to scrutinize governmental action more

23
closely when the State stands to benefit”) (emphasis added). The Washington

24
Supreme Court has reached a similar conclusion when analyzing a local
25

Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 13

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1 government’s right to violate individual constitutionally-protected rights for the

2
purpose of raising revenue:

3

4

While local governments exist to provide necessary public services to

those living within their borders and to avoid harms in their protection

5

of the public's health, safety, and general welfare, exercise of this

authority must be reasonable and rationally related to a legitimate

6

purpose of government such as avoiding harm or protecting health,

7

safety and general, not local or parochially conceived, welfare.

8 Norco Const., Inc. v. King County, 97 Wash.2d 680, 685, 649 P.2d 103, 106
9
(1982) (citing Save a Valuable Environment v. Bothell, 89 Wash.2d 862, 576 P.2d
10
11 401 (1978); Farrell v. Seattle, 75 Wash.2d 540, 452 P.2d 965 (1969); Southern

12 Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel, 67 N.J. 151, 177-78, 336 A.2d 713

13 (1975)) (emphasis added).); see also Brower v. State, 137 Wash.2d 44, 58, 969
14
P.2d 42, 51 (1998) (holding that legislative rights of the people reserved in state
15
16 constitutions are to be liberally construed in order to preserve them and render

17 them effective).
18
The primary purpose of the booking fee policy is to raise revenue for the
19
20 municipality. Thus, the County’s primary interest was in seizing Mr. Huss’s

21 property; it was less motivated to conduct the requisite evaluation that Mr. Huss’s

22 charges were dropped or that he was acquitted, and to refund his money as required

23
by law. Instead, Spokane County’s official policy put the onus on Mr. Huss to
24

25 have his money refunded. Justice Scalia’s advice rings true: where Spokane

Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 14

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1 County stands to benefit from the deprivation, it is necessary to scrutinize the

2
government’s actions more closely and to require that the County wait until after
3
an individual has been convicted before attempting to collect a booking fee.
4

5

The result of finding Spokane County and RCW 70.48.390 facially

6 unconstitutional simply requires that the Defendant wait until the proceeding has
7
been completed and a finding of guilt established prior to collecting a booking fee.
8
This will not necessitate an additional hearing, nor will it deprive the County of
9

10 any money which it could have rightfully acquired from all those who were booked

11 and convicted. Thus, the County’s right to recoup its booking costs will only be

12
delayed—not destroyed.
13

14

4. Mr. Huss is not required to exhaust administrative resources prior to

bringing a claim under the due process prong of the Fourteenth

15

Amendment.

16
There is no duty to exhaust administrative remedies in order to bring a claim
17
under 42 USC § 1983 for violations of an individual’s right to procedural due
18
19 process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Defendant has claimed in its

20 Answer to Plaintiff’s amended complaint that Plaintiff’s claims are not ripe
21
because the Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Defendant’s
22
23 Answer (CR 21 ¶¶ 5 & 29 & p.12 (F)). In the 1982 decision in Patsy v. Board of

24 Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 517 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “exhaustion

25
Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 15

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1 of state administrative remedies should not be required as a pre-requisite to §

2
1983.” Further, where such a remedy is inadequate exhaustion is never required.

3

4

The application of Matthews and Redmond to Spokane’s ordinance and

5 RCW 70.48.390 shows that they are constitutionally defective because the County

6 fails to provide an adequate pre-deprivation hearing and keeps the money even
7
after the statute requires it to be sent to the last known address of the former
8
9 inmate. Spokane County’s policy of seizing cash for intake booking fees violates

10 Mr. Huss’s and others similarly situated right to use of their personal property.

11 Therefore, Spokane County has violated Mr. Huss’s due process rights under the
12
Federal Constitution.
13

14 C. DEFENDANTS ACTIONS WERE BASED ON AN ACCEPTED

MUNICIPAL POLICY. THIS POLICY WAS THE MOVING FORCE

15

BEHIND THE DEPRIVATION OF PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS.

16
Spokane County resolution 04-0160 and RCW 70.48.390 were the “moving
17
force of constitutional violation”. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436
18

19 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 326, 102 S.Ct. 445,

20 454, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981). There must be a direct link between the municipal
21
policy or custom, and the alleged constitutional violation. City of Canton v.
22
23 Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385, 391, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 1203, 1206, 103 L.Ed.2d 412

24 (1989). It is clear from the record that Mr. Huss’s property was taken pursuant to

25
Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 16

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1 Spokane County Resolution 04-0160, which was passed in order to take booking
2
fees as authorized under RCW 70.48.390.
3
The Plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of his money without any pre-
4
5 deprivation hearing in violation of his clearly protected constitutional rights under

6 the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the type of blatant abuse of power that flies in
7
the face of clearly established Constitutional rights and is inappropriate for
8
qualified immunity. Orin v. Barclay, 272 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2001). Further,
9

10 qualified immunity is simply unavailable where conduct violates clearly

11 established constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
12
Even if the Defendants claim that they acted in “good faith” Washington has
13
14 rejected the “good faith” doctrine. The exclusion of this doctrine “serves not

15 merely as a remedial measure for unconstitutional government actions, but rather

16 to assure judicial integrity and preserve the individual's right to privacy." State v.
17
White, 97 Wash. 2d 92, 109-10, 640 P.2d 1061 (1982). In this case, the
18
19 Defendants had the opportunity and duty to diligently research the law prior to

20 enacting its official booking fee policy. It failed to use reasonable diligence and its
21
official policy and procedures disregard Mr. Huss’s clearly established
22
constitutional rights. This municipal policy was clearly the moving force which
23
24 led Spokane County to deprive the Plaintiff of his constitutionally protected rights.

25
Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 17

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1 Thus, because reasonable minds can only reach one conclusion, Spokane County is

2
liable for its actions as a matter of law.
3
IV. CONCLUSION
4

5

Spokane County’s official booking fee policy and RCW 70.48.390 are

6 facially unconstitutional in that they deprive individuals of their property without
7
due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
8
Constitution. Because both Spokane County’s booking policy and RCW 70.48.390
9

10 allow the County to convert an individual’s personal funds to their own use

11 without notice or an opportunity to be heard, they are illegal and must be struck
12
down. This Court should hold Spokane County liable as a matter of law and grant
13
14 the Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.

15 Dated this 22rd day of November, 2005.

16

s/Breean L. Beggs

17

WSBA # 20795

Center for Justice

18

35 W. Main, Suite 300

19

Spokane, WA 99201

Telephone: (509) 835.5211

20

Fax: (509) 835.3867

21

E-Mail: Breean@cforjustice.org

Attorney for Plaintiff

22

23

24

25
Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 18

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 28 Filed 11/22/2005

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
I hereby certify that on November 22, 2005, I presented the foregoing to the Clerk 3 of the Court for filing and uploading to the CM/ECF system which will send
notification of such filing to the following:
4

5 Breean Lawrence Beggs breean@cforjustice.org, dbacot@cforjustice.org,
jrasler@cforjustice.org
6

7
James H. Kaufman
8

jkaufman@spokanecounty.org

9

10

s/Breean L. Beggs

WSBA # 20795

11

Center for Justice

12

35 W. Main, Suite 300

Spokane, WA 99201

13

Telephone: (509) 835.5211

14

Fax: (509) 835.3867

E-Mail: Breean@cforjustice.org

15

Attorney for Plaintiff

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Plaintiff’s Memo in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - 19

Center for Justice 35 West Main, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 835-5211/Fax: (509) 835-3867

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 36 Filed 11/28/2005

1

HONORABLE FRED VAN SICKLE

2 JAMES H. KAUFMAN WSBA 7836

3 Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
4 1115 West Broadway, 2nd floor

Spokane, WA 99260 5 Phone: (509) 477-5764

6 FAX: (509) 477-3672 Email: jkaufman@spokanecounty.org

7
FRANK CONKLIN WSBA 4325 8 C.K. Powers P.S.

9

818 West Riverside # 640 Spokane, WA 99201

10 Phone: (509) 747-6877 FAX: (509 747-6950
11 Email fjconklin@yahoo.com

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

14 SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and )

others similarly situated

)

15

)

16

Plaintiff

)

)

17 Vs

)

) 18 SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal )

19 Corporation

)

)

20

Defendant

)

Cause No. CV 05 180 FVS
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6)) ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
NOTED FOR HEARING JANUARY 13, 2006 @ 11:30

21

********************

22

23

24 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(FRCP 12(b)(6)) ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 2

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 36 Filed 11/28/2005

1

Comes now Spokane County, by its attorneys and moves the Court to enter

2 an order of dismissing this cause with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) on
3
the grounds that the Plaintiff fails to State a Claim; alternatively, if the Court
4
considers any Affidavit or Declaration on file in this cause, to grant Summary
5
6 Judgment dismissing the cause with prejudice.

7

Spokane County contends that there is no material dispute of fact and that

8 Spokane County is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

9

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of November 2005,

10

11

/s/ James H. Kaufman

JAMES H. KAUFMAN WSBA 7836 12 Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

13 Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office 1115 West Broadway, 2nd floor

14 Spokane, WA 99260

Phone: (509) 477-5764 15 FAX: (509) 477-3672

16 Email: jkaufman@spokanecounty.org

17
/s/ Frank Conklin 18 FRANK CONKLIN WSBA 4325 19 C.K. Powers P.S.
818 West Riverside # 640 20 Spokane, WA 99201
Phone: (509) 747-6877 21 FAX: (509) 747-6950 22 Email fjconklin@yahoo.com

23

24 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(FRCP 12(b)(6)) ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 2 of 2

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 37 Filed 11/28/2005

1

HONORABLE FRED VAN SICKLE

2
3 JAMES H. KAUFMAN WSBA 7836 Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
4 Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney`s Office 1115 West Broadway, 2nd floor
5 Spokane, WA 99260 6 Phone: (509) 477-5764
FAX: (509) 477-3672 7 Email: jkaufman@spokanecounty.org

8 FRANK CONKLIN WSBA 4325

9

C.K. Powers P.S. 818 West Riverside # 640

10 Spokane, WA 99201

Phone: (509) 747-6877

11 FAX: (509) 747-6950

Email fjconklin@yahoo.com
12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

14

SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and )

15 others similarly situated

)

Cause No. CV 05 180 FVS

16

)

Plaintiff

) STATEMENT OF FACTS

17

) SUPPORTING MOTION TO

Vs
18

) DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO ) STATE A CLAIM

19 SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal Corporation

) (FRCP 12(b)(6)) ) ALTERNATIVELY FOR

20

) SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant

) (LR 56.1(a))

21

)

22

***************

23
STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
24 FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6))
ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 1 of 4

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 37 Filed 11/28/2005
1
2 The following facts are uncontroverted:
3
1. On or about May 14, 1999 the Washington legislature passed RCW
4
70.48.390, amending RCW 70.48, which authorized city, county, and regional jails
5
6 to take a $10.00 booking fee from the person of each individual booked (S.H.B.
7 1143, (1999)).
8 2. On or about May 7, 2003, the 58th legislature of Washington amended
9 RCW 70.48.390 to allow counties to collect “jail’s actual booking costs or one
10
hundred dollars, whichever is less.” (S.H.B. No. 1232 (2003)).
11
3. On or about February 24, 2004 the Spokane County Board of
12
13 Commissioners passed Resolution 04-0160 authorizing the Spokane County Jail to
14 develop and implement a procedure to collect a booking fee from persons booked
15 in the Spokane County Jail in accordance with RCW 70.48.390.
16
4. The Spokane County Jail adopted a policy which authorizes the collection
17
of an intake fee. Federal inmates are charged the federal daily rate, while non-
18
19 federal inmates are charged the jail intake fee--$89.12 as of May 2004.
20 5. Any funds in the possession of the person being booked into jail are taken
21 from the person at the time of booking along with guns, knives prescription drugs
22 etc.
23
STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
24 FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6))
ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 2 of 4

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 37 Filed 11/28/2005

1 6. If the person does not have adequate fees on their person at the time of

2 booking, a charge is assessed to the person’s account.

3
7. On or about October 31, 2004, the Plaintiff was arrested based on a
4
domestic violence complaint.
5

6

8. Plaintiff has not contended that the Spokane City Police did not have

7 probable cause to arrest him.

8 9. Plaintiff was taken to the Spokane County Jail and routinely booked into
9 jail.
10
10. In the process of booking him into jail his personal property was routinely
11
taken from him, including the sum of $ 37.00 in his wallet.
12
13 11. Subsequently the domestic violence charges were dropped.

14 12. RCW 70.48 390 provides that if the person is not charged or is acquitted,

15 or if the charges are dismissed, that no fee shall be charged and any funds shall be
16
returned to the person.
17
13. In compliance with changes in State law [Engrossed House Bill 1530,
18
19 Laws of 1001, ch119] on September 11, 2001, the Spokane County Board of

20 Commissioners, adopted a new procedure and designated Spokane County Risk

21 Manager or his/her designee as the agent appointed by Spokane County to receive
22
any claims made against Spokane County.
23
STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
24 FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6))
ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 3 of 4

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 37 Filed 11/28/2005

1 14. Plaintiff has never filed any claim with the Spokane County Risk Manager.

2

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of November 2005,

3

4

/s/ James H. Kaufman 5 JAMES H. KAUFMAN WSBA 7836

6 Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney`s Office
7 1115 West Broadway, 2nd floor

Spokane, WA 99260

8 Phone: (509) 477-5764

9

FAX: (509) 477-3672 Email: jkaufman@spokanecounty.org

10

11

/s/ Frank Conklin

FRANK CONKLIN WSBA 4325 12 C.K. Powers P.S.

13 818 West Riverside # 640 Spokane, WA 99201

14 Phone: (509) 747-6877

FAX: (509) 747-6950 15 Email fjconklin@yahoo.com

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
24 FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6))
ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 4 of 4

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 38 Filed 11/28/2005

1

HONORABLE FRED VAN SICKLE

2
3 JAMES H. KAUFMAN WSBA 7836 Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
4 Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney`s Office 1115 West Broadway, 2nd floor
5 Spokane, WA 99260 6 Phone: (509) 477-5764
FAX: (509) 477-3672 7 Email: jkaufman@spokanecounty.org

8 FRANK CONKLIN WSBA 4325

9

C.K. Powers P.S. 818 West Riverside # 640

10 Spokane, WA 99201

Phone: (509) 747-6877

11 FAX: (509) 747-6950

Email fjconklin@yahoo.com
12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

14

SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and )

15 others similarly situated

)

Cause No. CV 05 180 FVS

16

) MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING

Plaintiff

) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR

17

) FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Vs
18

) (FRCP 12(b)(6))

)

ALTERNATIVELY FOR

19 SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal )

Corporation

)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

20

) [NOTED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT]

Defendant

)

21

22

***********************

23
MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION TO DISMISS
24 FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6)
ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 11

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 38 Filed 11/28/2005

1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

2

I. THE PLAINTIFF CANNOT CLAIM PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM

3 A SUBDIVISION OF A STATE.

4

II. THE PLAINTIFF CANNOT CLAIM THAT AN

UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF PROPERTY PROHIBITED BY THE 5 FIFTH AMENDMENT HAS OCCURRED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAS

6 FAILED TO EXHAUST HIS STATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.

7

III. NO RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF SECURED BY THE “DUE

PROCESS” CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAVE BEEN

8 VIOLATED.

9

IV. PLAINTIFF CANNOT MEET HIS HEAVY BURDEN OF

10 PROVING THAT SPOKANE COUNTY RESOLUTION 04-0160 AND RCW 70.48.390 ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THEIR FACE.
11

ARGUMENT
12

13

I. THE PLAINTIFF CANNOT CLAIM PUNITIVE

DAMAGES FROM A SUBDIVISION OF A STATE.

14

The request of the Plaintiff for punitive damages is patently frivolous
15

16 because it is hornbook law that a municipality may not be held liable for damages

17 when sued under 42 USCA § 1983. City of Newport v Fact Concerts, 453 U.S.

18 247, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981). Plaintiff has conceded this issue in
19
his motion to file a second amended complaint.
20

21

22

23
MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION TO DISMISS
24 FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6)
ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 2 of 11

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 38 Filed 11/28/2005

1

II. THE PLAINTIFF CANNOT CLAIM THAT AN

UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF PROPERTY

2

PROHIBITED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT HAS

3

OCCURRED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO

EXHAUST HIS STATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.

4

The State of Washington and the County of Spokane have provided an
5

6 adequate procedure for recovering any property, whether real or personal,

7 allegedly wrongfully taken by the government by providing that any claimant

8 must first file a claim with the designated agent of the County, which in the
9
instant case is the Office of Risk Management.
10
The landmark case addressing this issue is Williamson County Regional
11
12 Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 194-197, 105
13 S.Ct. 3108, 3120-3122, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985) wherein the Court held:

14

A second reason the taking claim is not yet ripe is that respondent did

not seek compensation through the procedures the State has provided

15

for doing so. The Fifth Amendment does not proscribe the taking of

16

property; it proscribes taking without just compensation. Hodel v.

Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S., at 297,

17

n. 40. Nor does the Fifth Amendment require that just compensation

be paid in advance of, or contemporaneously with, the taking; all that

18

is required is that a "'reasonable, certain and adequate provision for

19

obtaining compensation'" exist at the time of the taking. Regional Rail

Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 124-125 (1974) (quoting

20

Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co., 135 U.S. 641, 659

(1890)). See also Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S., at 1016;

21

Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18, 21 (1940);

22

Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U.S. 95, 104 (1932). If the government has

provided an adequate process for obtaining compensation, and if

23

MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION TO DISMISS
24 FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6)
ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 3 of 11

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 38 Filed 11/28/2005

1

resort to that process "[yields] just compensation," then the

property owner "has no claim against the Government" for a

2

taking. Monsanto, 467 U.S., at 1013, 1018, n. 21. Thus, we have held

3

that taking claims against the Federal Government are premature until

the property owner has availed itself of the process provided by the

4

Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. Monsanto, 467 U.S. at 1016-1020.

Similarly, if a State provides an adequate procedure for seeking

5

just compensation, the property owner cannot claim a violation of

6

the Just Compensation Clause until it has used the procedure and

been denied just compensation. [473 U.S. 172, at 195, 105 S.Ct.

7

3108, at 3121 emphasis added].

8
It is uncontroverted that Plaintiff has not filed any claim with the Spokane
9
County Risk Management office and, as he concedes in his motion to amend the
10
11 complaint for a second time, the Plaintiff has no cause of action for violation of

12 the Fifth Amendment. (See attached Affidavit of James H. Kaufman)

13 III. NO RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF SECURED BY THE

14

“DUE PROCESS” CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENT HAVE BEEN VIOLATED

15

16

Procedural Due Process

17

Throughout his complaints, Plaintiff repeatedly argues that impounding the

18
funds which a person has with them when they are booked into the jail is an
19

unconstitutional “seizure” or “taking” of personal property because the Plaintiff
20

21 was not given adequate notice that his personal property is going to be taken

22 when he is booked into jail.

23
MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION TO DISMISS
24 FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6)
ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 4 of 11

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 38 Filed 11/28/2005

1

Every day throughout the United States people are incarcerated and the

2 government routinely takes their, guns, knives, prescription drugs, jewelry, belts

3
razors, controlled substances and even cash when these persons are booked into
4
custody.
5

6

Quite obviously the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a pre-

7 deprivation hearing need not be granted when to do so would be inconsistent with

8 the countervailing state interest of overriding significance. See, Mackey v
9 Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979) wherein the Court
10
held that the delay which would be created by the requirement of a hearing prior to
11
the temporary suspension of a driver’s license for refusal to submit to a
12
13 breathalyzer test would compromise the states interest in public safety.

14 Consequently, “due process” is satisfied with the availability of a prompt post-

15 suspension hearing. And the same is true in this cause.
16
In order to recover those items the State of Washington has enacted a
17
comprehensive statutory procedure whereby any citizen may file a claim against
18
19 any governmental entity in order to have their personal property promptly returned.

20

Obviously, all citizens are presumed to know that this law exists and

21 Plaintiff fails to cite any case from any jurisdiction whatsoever, holding that the
22
United States Constitution requires that some type of special individualized notice
23
MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION TO DISMISS
24 FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6)
ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 5 of 11

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 38 Filed 11/28/2005
1 must be given to each and every citizen who fails to inquire what they have to do
2 in order to have their property returned.
3
At the same time it must be kept in mind that the State has every right to
4
charge inmates for keeping them. The decision to refund or waive such financial
5
6 impositions if the charges against an individual are dismissed is a matter of grace--
7 --not of right. And the individual has to assume responsibility for recovering this
8 entitlement. Namely, RCW 70.48.390 is a matter of state statutory entitlement, not 9 a Constitutional right as Plaintiff contends.
10
Substantive Due Process
11
Since Plaintiff admittedly cannot prevail under a Fifth Amendment takings
12
13 claim he has sought to fill this lacuna by resort to due process clause of the
14 Fourteenth Amendment. However, Parratt v Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct.
15 1908, 65 L.Ed.2d 410 (1981) is dispositive. In Parratt an inmate filed a § 1983
16
action against prison officials alleging that they had negligently lost certain hobby
17
materials he had ordered by mail and thus deprived him of property without due
18
19 process of law. The Court held that the prison officials were acting under color of
20 law, the lost materials were “property” and that the loss amounted to a
21 “deprivation”. But the Court went on to hold that those three elements [which are
22
the only elements the Plaintiff has] do not establish a violation of the Fourteenth
23
MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION TO DISMISS
24 FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6)
ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 6 of 11

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 38 Filed 11/28/2005

1 Amendment because the Fourteenth Amendment protects only against deprivations

2 “without due process of law”. Since the State of Nebraska provided a post

3
deprivation remedy, just as the State of Washington does in this case, there was no
4
violation of the Federal Constitution.
5

6

Likewise in Hudson v Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 68 L.Ed.2d

7 420 (1984), a state inmate brought a § 1983 action alleging that a prison guard had

8 engaged in an unreasonable “shakedown” of his cell and had intentionally
9 destroyed some of the inmate’s personal property in the process of searching. The
10
Court, citing Parratt held that the inmate had an adequate post deprivation remedy
11
by filing a claim pursuant to State law and consequently there could be no violation
12
13 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

14

Spokane County submits that both of these cases are squarely in point. In

15 summary, throughout his amended Complaints the Plaintiff seeks to raise the
16
“takings” issue as a substantive or procedural due process claim. However, any
17
such contention is foreclosed by the en banc decision of the Ninth Circuit in
18
19 Amendariz v Penman, 75 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1996), wherein the court began by

20 pointing out that “[t]he use of substantive due process to extend constitutional

21 protection to economic and property rights has been generally discredited” (at
22
1318-1319) and then went on to adopt the statement of Justice Rehnquist in his
23
MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION TO DISMISS
24 FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6)
ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 7 of 11

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 38 Filed 11/28/2005

1 plurality opinion in Albright v Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 114 S.Ct. 807, 813, 127

2 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) wherein Justice Rehnquist stated: that when there is a
3
specific constitutional amendment addressing an issue (in this case the takings
4
clause of the Fifth Amendment) that amendment and not the more generalized
5
6 notion of “substantive due process” must be the guide for analyzing these claims.

7

The real significance of Amendariz lies in the fact that the en banc Court

8 overruled a specific holding in Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City of Simi Valley,
9 864 F.2d 1475 (9th Cir. 1989) even though the claimants had not exhausted their
10
state remedies and could not raise a “taking” claim for the destruction of their dam,
11
that they could raise the substantive and procedural issues relating to lack of notice
12
13 etc. before the taking transpired.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION TO DISMISS
24 FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6)
ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 8 of 11

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 38 Filed 11/28/2005

1 II. PLAINTIFF CANNOT MEET HIS HEAVY BURDEN OF

PROVING THAT SPOKANE COUNTY RESOLUTION 04-

2

0160 AND RCW 70.48.390 ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON

3

THEIR FACE.

4

In his complaints, Plaintiff repeatedly reiterates that RCW 70.48.390 and

5 Spokane County Resolution 04-0160 are unconstitutional on their face but offers
6
no citation of authority nor focused argument. However, the thrust of the
7
Plaintiff’s objection appears to be that it is unconstitutional for the State of
8
9 Washington to charge booking fees to persons of modest means when they are
10 incarcerated.

11

Be that as it may, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that any person

12 raising a facial constitutional challenge to any state or federal statute confronts “a
13
heavy burden” in advancing their claim.
14
In Rust v Sullivan,1 500 U.S. 173, 183, 111 S.Ct. 1759, 114 L.Ed.2d 233
15
16 (1991), the Court held:

17

Petitioners are challenging the facial validity of the regulations. Thus,

we are concerned only with the question whether, on their face, the

18

regulations are both authorized by the Act and can be construed in

19

such a manner that they can be applied to a set of individuals without

infringing upon constitutionally protected rights. Petitioners face a

20

heavy burden in seeking to have the regulations invalidated as

21
1 Rust was a facial challenge to DSHS regulations limiting the ability of Federal 22 fund recipients to engage in abortion related activities. The Court upheld the
statute.
23
MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION TO DISMISS
24 FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6)
ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 9 of 11

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 38 Filed 11/28/2005

1

facially unconstitutional." A facial challenge to a legislative Act is,

of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the

2

challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under

3

which the Act would be valid. The fact that [the regulations] might

operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of

4

circumstances is insufficient to render [them] wholly invalid." United

States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697, 107 S. Ct.

5

2095 (1987). (Emphasis added)

6
Facial invalidation "is, manifestly, strong medicine" that "has been
7
employed by the Court sparingly and only as a last resort." Broadrick v. Oklahoma,
8
9 413 U.S. 601, 613, 93 S.Ct. 2908; 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); see also FW/PBS, Inc. v.

10 Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 223, 110 S.Ct. 596; 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) (noting that

11 “facial challenges to legislation are generally disfavored”).

12

Plaintiff clearly has not come close to meeting that burden.

13
WHEREFORE: Spokane County respectfully requests this Court to dismiss
14
this cause with prejudice.
15

16

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of November 2005,

17

/s/ James H. Kaufman

JAMES H. KAUFMAN WSBA 7836 18 Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

19

Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office 1115 West Broadway, 2nd floor

20 Spokane Wa 99260

Phone: (509) 477-5764 21 FAX: (509) 477-3672

22 Email: jkaufman@spokanecounty.org

23
MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION TO DISMISS
24 FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6)
ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 10 of 11

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 38 Filed 11/28/2005

1

/s/ Frank Conklin

FRANK CONKLIN WSBA 4325 2 C.K. Powers P.S.

3 818 West Riverside # 640 Spokane, WA 99260

4 Phone: (509) 747-6877

FAX: (509) 747-6950 5 Email fjconklin@yahoo.com

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION TO DISMISS
24 FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FRCP 12(b)(6)
ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 11 of 11

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 68 Filed 03/17/2006

1

Honorable FRED VAN SICKLE

2 TIMOTHY D. FORD WSBA 29254 Deputy Solicitor General
3 1125 Washington Street SE P.O. Box 40100
4 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 Phone: (360) 586-0756
5 Fax: (360) 664-2963 Email: timf@atg.wa.gov
6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8
SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and

NO. CV 05 180 FVS

9 others similarly situated,

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S

10

Plaintiff,

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

11

v.

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

12 SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal corporation,

13
Defendant,

14
and

15
ROB MCKENNA, WASHINGTON

16 STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

17

Defendant Intervenor.

18

19
I. INTRODUCTION
20
COMES NOW Defendant Intervenor Washington State Attorney General, by
21
and through Timothy D. Ford, Deputy Solicitor General, and hereby responds to
22
Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment filed November 22, 2005. Plaintiff
23
Shawn Huss’s class action lawsuit seeks declaratory relief that Spokane County’s
24
official booking fee policy and Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390 are facially
25
unconstitutional as depriving persons of their property without due process of law in
26

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S

1

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 1125 Washington Street SE PO Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 (360) 753-6200

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 68 Filed 03/17/2006

1 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendant

2 Attorney General responds to Plaintiff’s partial summary judgment motion and herein

3 argues that Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390 is facially constitutional.

4

II. FACTS

5

Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390 provides statutory authority for Spokane County

6 to assess a booking fee, but does not mandate the assessment of booking fees or the

7 procedures to be used by the county to collect them. Plaintiff’s statement of facts notes

8 that Spokane and other counties have implemented Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390

9 differently. Plaintiff’s statement of facts claims that Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390

10 does not provide any provision for either a pre- or post-deprivation hearing before the

11 individual is deprived of his or her money. Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390 does not

12 preclude any governing unit from providing a deprivation hearing. Plaintiff does not

13 offer what type of pre- or post-deprivation hearing he believes is necessary to avoid a

14 constitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

15 Constitution.

16

Plaintiff does not allege any error by Spokane County in the assessment of the

17 booking fee. Plaintiff does not claim that he was wrongfully booked. Plaintiff admits

18 to being arrested and booked at the Spokane County jail on or about October 31, 2004.

19 Therefore, Plaintiff was correctly assessed a booking fee pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code

20 § 70.48.390. The affidavit of Kay Donder states that Plaintiff had $39.30 taken from

21 him at the time of booking. Plaintiff does not allege that the booking fee was assessed

22 in error due to miscalculation of the fee amount. Plaintiff does not provide any other

23 examples of error in the assessment of the booking fee for any of the other potential

24 class members.

25

26

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S

2

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 1125 Washington Street SE PO Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 (360) 753-6200

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 68 Filed 03/17/2006

1

Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390 requires that the booking fee shall be returned if a

2 person is not charged, is acquitted, or if all charges are dismissed. Plaintiff claims he

3 was released from jail the next day and that all the charges were dropped. The

4 affidavit of Kay Donder states that the sum of $39.30 was returned to Plaintiff by

5 check dated February 23, 2005.

6

III. ANALYSIS

7 A. Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390 Is Not Mandatory And Does Not Preclude

8

Due Process Procedures

9

A successful facial challenge is one where no set of circumstances exists in

10 which the statute, as currently written, can be constitutionally applied. Wash. State

11 Republican Party v. Wash. State Pub. Disclosure Comm’n, 141 Wn.2d 245, 4 P.3d 808

12 (2000). The remedy for holding a statute facially unconstitutional is to render the

13 statute totally inoperative. In re Det. of Turay, 139 Wn.2d 379, 417 n.27, 986 P.2d 790

14 (1999). Plaintiff must show that it is not possible for any county, city, or regional jail

15 to constitutionally implement Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390, which provides:

16

A governing unit may require that each person who is booked at a

17

city, county, or regional jail pay a fee based on the jail’s actual booking costs or one hundred dollars, whichever is less, to the sheriff’s department

18

of the county or police chief of the city in which the jail is located. The

19

fee is payable immediately from any money then possessed by the person

being booked, or any money deposited with the sheriff’s department or

20

city jail administration on the person’s behalf. If the person has no funds

21

at the time of booking or during the period of incarceration, the sheriff or

police chief may notify the court in the county or city where the charges

22

related to the booking are pending, and may request the assessment of the

23

fee. Unless the person is held on other criminal matters, if the person is

not charged, is acquitted, or if all charges are dismissed, the sheriff or

24

police chief shall return the fee to the person at the last known address

25

listed in the booking records.

26

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S

3

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 1125 Washington Street SE PO Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 (360) 753-6200

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 68 Filed 03/17/2006

1

The language of this provision is not mandatory. No county is under any

2 obligation to assess a booking fee, or to use or not use any particular procedure to

3 assess a booking fee. Plaintiff’s statement of facts notes that other counties implement

4 Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390 differently. Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390 does not

5 preclude the use of pre- or post-deprivation process appropriate to the circumstance.

6

Laws that do not expressly provide pre-deprivation procedures are not facially

7 unconstitutional where such procedures are not precluded. MacPherson v. Dep’t of

8 Admin. Servs., 340 Or. 117, __ P.3d __, 2006 WL 433953 (2006). In MacPherson, the

9 court examined whether Measure 37 violated procedural due process under the

10 Fourteenth Amendment where the measure did not provide explicit due process

11 procedures. Measure 37, a voter approved measure that required government to

12 compensate landowners for reductions of real property values or waive such

13 regulations, did not “preclude responsible governmental entities from implementing

14 such predeprivation procedures”, even assuming that they are constitutionally required.

15 Id. at *12. The MacPherson court upheld the constitutionality of Measure 37 where

16 the plaintiff had failed the “heavy burden” of demonstrating that the statute cannot be

17 constitutionally applied under any circumstance. Id. at *11 (citing United States v.

18 Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1987)).

19

Plaintiff must conclusively demonstrate that Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390

20 “affirmatively permits the government to deprive plaintiffs of their property without

21 affording procedural due process.” MacPherson, 2006 WL 433953, at *11. In

22 contrast to MacPherson, the Washington State Supreme Court held, in City of

23 Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wn.2d 664, 91 P.3d 875 (2004), that statutes providing for the

24 mandatory suspension of drivers’ licenses without an administrative hearing violated

25 procedural due process. While Measure 37 did not preclude implementation of

26 deprivation procedures, the express language of Washington’s license suspension

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S

4

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 1125 Washington Street SE PO Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 (360) 753-6200

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 68 Filed 03/17/2006

1 statutes, at Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.289 and .324(1), construed together, precluded

2 any opportunity for a formal hearing. Moore, 151 Wn.2d at 668. The plaintiffs in

3 Moore demonstrated that the lack of adequate procedural safeguards to ensure against

4 erroneous deprivation of the interest in a driver’s license violated the Fourteenth

5 Amendment.

6

The significance of contrasting MacPherson and Moore could not be clearer

7 with regard to Plaintiff’s facial challenge to the constitutionality of Washington State’s

8 booking fee statute. Moore held that state law mandated the suspension of a driver’s

9 license without an administrative hearing while MacPherson did not expressly

10 preclude the use of deprivation procedures. The language of Wash. Rev. Code

11 § 70.48.390, “[a] governing unit may require”, is permissive, not mandatory, and does

12 not preclude deprivation procedures. This makes Washington’s booking fee statute

13 more like the case of MacPherson than like Moore.

14

Even assuming for the sake of argument that due process is required, Plaintiff

15 cannot prevail on a facial challenge unless no set of circumstances exists in which

16 Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390, as currently written, can be constitutionally applied. As

17 Plaintiff’s statement of facts note, some Washington counties implement Wash. Rev.

18 Code § 70.48.390 differently than other counties. Yet, Plaintiff’s analysis of due

19 process has been limited to Spokane County’s implementation of the booking fee

20 statute without regard to the differences in how other counties implement the same

21 law.

22

Local government is responsible for administering jails and has the authority,

23 consistent with state law, to decide how that is to be done. See Wash. Rev. Code

24 § 70.48.071, .180. In 2000, the Washington State Legislature passed an act directing

25 the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to implement and operate

26 an electronic statewide city and county jail booking and reporting system. Wash.

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S

5

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 1125 Washington Street SE PO Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 (360) 753-6200

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 68 Filed 03/17/2006

1 Rev. Code § 36.28A.040(1) (Laws of 2000, ch. 3, § 1, as amended by Laws of 2001, 2 ch. 169, § 3).1 If a county chooses to receive state or federal funding to implement

3 the booking system, the county shall implement the booking system. Jail booking

4 information includes a minimum of the name of the offender, vital statistics, the date

5 the offender was arrested, the offenses arrested for, the date and time an offender is

6 released or transferred from a city or county jail, and, if available, the mug shot.

7 Wash. Rev. Code § 36.28A.040(3). Counties may implement a booking fee policy

8 pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390 to recover some of the actual costs of these

9 booking activities. Counties may implement a booking fee policy differently because

10 the plain language of the statute is permissive and it does not mandate any particular

11 process or preclude any deprivation procedures.

12

Pursuant to Spokane County Resolution 04-0160, the Spokane County jail

13 adopted an official policy to implement Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390 and collect

14 booking fees. This official policy is attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Breean 15 Beggs in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.2 The official

16 policy states: “The intake fee will be charged after it is determined that the inmate will

17 not be using their funds to bond out of custody.” Beggs Decl. in Support of Pl’s Partial

18 Mot. Summ. J., Ex. B (Policy 2.00.00 Booking at 11.3.b). From this policy, it is clear

19

20

1 This statute does not contain a definition of “booking”, but it does list the

21 minimum information the booking and information system should contain. Wash.

22 Rev. Code § 36.28A.040.

23

2 Plaintiff later successfully moved to strike the motion for partial summary

24 judgment and resubmitted a motion for partial summary judgment on November 22,

25 2005, but without the exhibits of Spokane County’s resolution and the county jail’s

26 official policy.

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S

6

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 1125 Washington Street SE PO Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 (360) 753-6200

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 68 Filed 03/17/2006

1 that the county jail collection system has flexibility. The policy allows a pre-

2 deprivation process for determining whether an inmate chooses to use his or her funds

3 for bonding. The policy provides due process to ensure that the funds are available for

4 bonding, even if it means that there are no funds to pay the booking fee.

5

Plaintiff has not met his heavy burden of proving that under no set of

6 circumstances could Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390 be constitutional. Wash. Rev.

7 Code § 70.48.390 does not expressly preclude deprivation procedures and, therefore,

8 like in MacPherson, the booking fee statute is not facially unconstitutional under the

9 Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

10

IV. CONCLUSION

11

Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390 is not mandatory and does not preclude the

12 application of a deprivation hearing. Plaintiff notes that other counties have

13 implemented Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390 differently than Spokane. A successful

14 facial challenge must demonstrate that no circumstances exist where an application of

15 Wash. Rev. Code § 70.48.390 could be constitutional. That would require an analysis

16 of the differences between each and every counties’ implementation of Wash. Rev.

17 Code § 70.48.390. Plaintiff does not do this and so his facial challenge must

18 necessarily fail.

19

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of March, 2006.

20

ROB MCKENNA

Attorney General

21

22

s/Timothy D. Ford

23

TIMOTHY D. FORD, WSBA #29254

Deputy Solicitor General

24

PO Box 40100

Olympia, WA 98504-0100

25

(360) 586-0756

26

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S

7

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 1125 Washington Street SE PO Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 (360) 753-6200

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 68 Filed 03/17/2006

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on March 17, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with

3 the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send notification of such

4 filing to the following:
5
Breean Beggs at:
6
7
James H. Kaufman at:
8
9
Frank Conklin at:
10

breean@cforjustice.org jrasler@cforjustice.org dbacot@cforjujstice.org JKaufman@spokanecounty.org dmonroe@spokanecounty.org tbaldwin@spokanecounty.org fjconklin@yahoo.com conklinsparalegal@hotmail.com

11

12

s/Timothy D. Ford

TIMOTHY D. FORD, WSBA #29254

13

Attorney for Defendants

Office of the Attorney General

14

Solicitor General’s Division

P.O. Box 40100

15

Olympia, WA 98504-0100

Tel: (360) 586-0728

16

Fax: (360) 664-2963

E-mail: timf@atg.wa.gov

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S

8

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 1125 Washington Street SE PO Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 (360) 753-6200

 
 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

4
5 SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and others similarly situated,
6
Plaintiff,
7
v.
8

No. CV-05-180-FVS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

9
SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal corporation,
10
Defendant.
11

12

13

THIS MATTER came before the Court for a hearing on the

14 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, Ct. Rec. 80, and the

15 Intervener Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, Ct. Rec. 77. The

16 Plaintiff was represented by Breean L. Beggs and John D. Sklut.

17 Spokane County was represented by Frank J. Conklin and James K.

18 Kaufman. The State of Washington was represented by Timothy D. Ford.

19

BACKGROUND

20

The Plaintiff, Shawn Huss, brings suit individually and on behalf

21 of a class of others similarly situated, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and

22 1988, seeking both monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive

23 relief. The Plaintiff alleges that the official booking fee policy of

24 the Spokane County Jail ("the Jail") and RCW § 70.48.390 are facially

25 unconstitutional because they deprive persons of their property

26 without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION- 1

1 the United States Constitution.

2

The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. On August

3 29, 2006, the Court issued an Order holding that RCW § 70.48.390 is

4 facially unconstitutional. The Court accordingly granted the

5 Plaintiff’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment and denied the

6 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Ct. Rec. 75). The County and

7 State each separately moved for reconsideration.

8

DISCUSSION

9

I. LEGAL STANDARD

10

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a party may move to

11 amend a judgment within ten days of the filing of the judgment. Fed.

12 R. Civ. P. 59(e). However, such a motion for reconsideration “offers

13 an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of

14 finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” Carroll v.

15 Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003)(quoting 12 James Wm. Moore

16 et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 59.30 (3d ed. 2000)). “A Rule

17 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence

18 for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier

19 in the litigation.” Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945; Kona Enters. v. Estate

20 of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “Nor is reconsideration

21 to be used to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought.”

22 Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contrs., Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581,

23 582 (D. Ariz. 2003). See also Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th

24 Cir. 1988)(holding denial of a motion for reconsideration proper where

25 “it presented no arguments that had not already been raised in

26 opposition to summary judgment”); Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION- 2

1 1388 (9th Cir. 1985)(same). Absent exceptional circumstances, only

2 three types of arguments provide an appropriate basis for a motion for

3 reconsideration: arguments based on newly discovered evidence,

4 arguments that the court has committed clear error, and arguments

5 based on “an intervening change in the controlling law.” 89 Orange

6 St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).

7 II. STANDING

8

As a jurisdictional issue, standing may be raised at any point in

9 the litigation. DBSI/TRI IV Ltd. P'ship v. United States, 465 F.3d

10 1031, 1038 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court accordingly considers the

11 Defendant's standing concerns free of the procedural constraints

12 associated with a motion for reconsideration.

13

A party has standing to bring a claim when he or she has suffered

14 an actual injury, the defendant’s conduct caused the injury, and

15 action by the court is capable of redressing the injury. Lujan v.

16 Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L.

17 Ed. 2d 351, 364 (1992). There is a presumption that an individual

18 only has standing to bring claims based on injuries he or she has

19 suffered personally, rather than injuries suffered by a third party.

20 Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 113, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2873-2874, 49 L.

21 Ed. 2d 826, 832-33 (1976). Where an individual seeks to represent a

22 class of individuals, the proposed class representative must have

23 standing in his or her own right. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849,

24 860 (9th Cir. 2001); Blum v. Yarestsky, 457 U.S. 991, 102 S. Ct. 2777,

25 73 L. Ed. 2d 534 (1982).

26

A plaintiff seeking declaratory or injunctive relief must

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION- 3

1 demonstrate that he or she is under a realistic threat of future

2 injury. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102-103, 103 S.

3 Ct. 1660, 1665, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675, 684-685 (1983); Jones v. City of

4 L.A., 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). While the fact that the

5 plaintiff has suffered injury in the past may make the repetition of

6 the injury more likely, it does not in itself create a threat of

7 future harm sufficient to confer standing. Armstrong, 275 F.3d at

8 861; Fortyune v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir.

9 2004).

10

A past injury is likely to recur when “the harm alleged is

11 directly traceable to a written policy.” Armstrong, 275 at 861;

12 Fortyune, 364 F.3d at 1081. An injury is also likely to recur when it

13 is a part of an officially sanctioned pattern of behavior. Armstrong,

14 275 at 861. However, a plaintiff seeking to challenge an

15 unconstitutional policy must show “a genuine threat of enforcement” of

16 the policy against the plaintiff. Scott v. Pasadena Unified School

17 District, 306 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, “standing is

18 inappropriate where the future injury could be inflicted only in the

19 event of future illegal conduct by the plaintiff.” Armstrong, 275

20 F.3d at 865-66 (internal citations omitted).

21

The Court finds that the Plaintiff does not have standing to seek

22 declaratory or injunctive relief. As the Plaintiff explained at oral

23 argument, the assessment of booking fees without any prior hearing is

24 imminently likely to recur due to the existence of both the statute

25 and the County’s written policy. However, the Plaintiff has not

26 demonstrated that he, personally, is likely to be arrested and

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION- 4

1 assessed the booking fee again. While he could arguably be arrested

2 and assessed the booking fee at anytime, such a speculative injury is

3 insufficient to confer standing. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 105-06, 103 S.

4 Ct. at 1667, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 687. In order to demonstrate standing,

5 the Plaintiff would need to show that he is at least "reasonably

6 likely" to be arrested again. Jones v. City of L.A., 444 F.3d 1118,

7 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2006). The Plaintiff has not made this argument.

8

In addition, the Plaintiff would likely only suffer the booking

9 fee again if he were to engage in illegal activity. In Armstrong, the

10 Ninth Circuit held that parolees had standing to challenge

11 discriminatory parole hearing procedures because,

12

The [parole] Board is not required to establish probable

cause to begin the parole revocation process, nor is it

13

necessary that any law enforcement officer observe the

alleged violation: the Board may start parole revocation

14

proceedings when a rather low level of suspicion arises as

the result of ‘some minimal inquiry’ into the facts of the

15

case.

16 275 F.3d at 866. In contrast, the Plaintiff may only be arrested

17 again if law enforcement officers have probable cause to believe that

18 he has committed a crime. The Plaintiff will thus only suffer an

19 injury again if he commits an illegal act. This potential injury is

20 insufficient to confer standing.

21 III. MOOTNESS

22

Under Article III of the United States Constitution, a federal

23 court may only hear a cause of action that presents a live case or

24 controversy. When a case “loses its character as a live case or

25 controversy,” it becomes moot. Pit River Tribe v. United States

26 Forest Serv., 469 F.3d 768, 780 (9th Cir. 2006). “The burden of

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION- 5

1 demonstrating mootness is a heavy one.” Cantrell v. City of Long

2 Beach, 241 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2001). Mootness, like standing,

3 goes to this Court's jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff's claims.

4 DBSI/TRI, 465 F.3d at 1038. The Court must therefore consider it on a

5 motion for reconsideration.

6

The County argues that the Plaintiff’s claim against the County

7 is moot for two reasons. First, the Plaintiff received a refund of

8 the booking fee he was obliged to pay. Second, the County has changed

9 its policy concerning booking fees since the time of the Plaintiff’s

10 arrest.

11

The Court holds that the Plaintiff's case is not moot. As the

12 Supreme Court has explained, the doctrine of mootness requires “the

13 plaintiff 'must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury

14 traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable

15 judicial decision.'" Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir.

16 2005) (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S. Ct. 978, 140 L.

17 Ed. 2d 43 (1998)). Here, the injury the Plaintiff suffered was not

18 the permanent loss of his property, but rather the “right to use and

19 possess [his] money from the time of booking until such time as [he

20 was] exonerated.” This loss has not been rendered moot by the refund.

21

Nor does the County’s revision of its booking policy render the

22 case moot. As the Plaintiff’s counsel explained at oral argument, the

23 County’s policy still permits assessment of the booking fee without a

24 hearing.

25

CONCLUSION

26

The Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a facial challenge against

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION- 6

1 the constitutionality of RCW § 70.48.390 and the Jail's booking fee

2 policy because he has failed to demonstrate that he is threatened with

3 future injury. While the Plaintiff may continue to pursue his claim

4 for damages, his requests for declaratory and injunctive relief must

5 be dismissed. The Court's prior order granting summary judgment will

6 be withdrawn and the State's motion for reconsideration is moot.

7

The Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment sought

8 summary judgment on the issue of liability. (Ct. Rec. 27 at 1.)

9 However, the briefing on this motion almost exclusively addressed the

10 Plaintiff's facial challenge to the constitutionality of RCW §

11 70.48.390 and the Jail's booking fee policy. Neither party has fully

12 briefed the issue of whether the application of RCW § 70.48.390 and

13 the Jail's booking policy to the Plaintiff, and, potentially, other

14 similarly situated individuals, violated their civil rights.

15 Supplemental briefing is therefore necessary. Accordingly,

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

17

1. The Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, Ct. Rec. 80, is

18 GRANTED.

19

2. The Defendant Intervener's Motion for Reconsideration, Ct.

20 Rec. 77, is DENIED AS MOOT.

21

3. The Defendant's Motion to Stay Further Discovery Until

22 Reconsideration Motion is Determined, Ct. Rec. 107, is DENIED AS MOOT.

23

4. The Court's prior Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for

24 Partial Summary Judgment, Ct. Rec. 75, is WITHDRAWN.

25

5. The Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief

26 are DISMISSED.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION- 7

1

6. The Plaintiff shall submit a supplemental brief, not to exceed

2 fifteen (15) pages in length, no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 14, 2007,

3 addressing the question: "Is partial summary judgment appropriate on

4 any element of the Plaintiff's suit for damages under 28 U.S.C. §

5 1983?"

6

7. The Defendant shall file its response to the supplemental

7 briefing, not to exceed fifteen (15) pages in length, no later than

8 5:00 p.m. on May 29, 2007.

9

8. The Plaintiff shall file his reply, not to exceed fifteen (15)

10 pages in length, no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 5, 2007.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby

12 directed to enter this order and furnish copies to counsel.

13

DATED this 13th day of April, 2007.

14

s/ Fred Van Sickle

15

Fred Van Sickle

United States District Judge

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION- 8

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 140 Filed 10/12/07

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

4
5 SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and others similarly situated,
6
Plaintiffs,
7
v.
8

No. CV-05-180-FVS
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY

9
SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal corporation,
10
Defendant.
11

12

13

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion For

14 Partial Summary Judgment, Ct. Rec. 27, as addressed in the parties’

15 supplemental briefing. The Plaintiff is represented by Breean Beggs.

16 The Defendant is represented by James Kaufman and Frank Conklin.

17

BACKGROUND

18

The Plaintiff, Shawn Huss, filed suit individually and on behalf

19 of a class of others similarly situated, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and

20 1988, seeking both monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive

21 relief. The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the booking fee policy

22 of the Defendant Spokane County Jail ("the Jail"), as well as the

23 underlying statute, RCW § 70.48.390, are facially unconstitutional in

24 that they deprive individuals who are arrested of their property

25 without due process of law.

26

In May 1999, the Washington legislature passed RCW § 70.48.390,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY- 1

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 140 Filed 10/12/07

1 authorizing city, county, and regional jails to take a $10.00 booking

2 fee from the person of each individual booked into jail. In May 2003,

3 the Washington legislature amended RCW § 70.48.390, allowing jails to

4 require each person who is booked into jail to pay a fee based on the

5 jail’s actual booking costs or one hundred dollars, whichever is less.

6 The “fee is payable immediately from any money then possessed by the

7 person being booked” into jail. RCW § 70.48.390.

8

In accordance with RCW § 70.48.390, on or about February 24,

9 2004, the Spokane County Board of Commissioners passed Resolution 04-

10 0160, which authorized the Jail to develop and implement a procedure

11 to collect a fee from persons booked into jail. On May 5, 2004, 12 pursuant to Resolution 04-0160, the Jail adopted an official policy1

13 (“the Policy”) authorizing the collection of a booking fee. Under the

14 Policy, federal inmates are charged the federal daily rate while non-

15 federal inmates are charged the actual jail booking costs--$89.12.

16 Pursuant to the statute, the Policy allows the fees to be taken

17 directly from any funds in the person's possession at the time of

18 booking. If the person does not have adequate funds to cover the

19 booking fee, a charge is assessed to the person’s account. The Policy

20 does not provide a mechanism for determining whether the money taken

21 from the person is exempt public benefits or the property of a third

22 person. The Policy does not provide for a pre-deprivation hearing or

23 any other opportunity for persons to contest the taking of their

24 money.

25

26

1 Policy 2.00.00 Booking

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY- 2

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 140 Filed 10/12/07

1

Instead, the Jail adopted a separate reimbursement policy. Under

2 this reimbursement policy, the individual is required to prove the

3 charges against him or her were dropped or that he or she was

4 acquitted, and then, upon investigation by the Spokane County Jail 5 Staff, the inmate may2 be reimbursed for the intake fee.

6

In the present case, Mr. Huss was arrested based on a domestic

7 violence complaint and booked into the Spokane County Jail on October

8 31, 2004. Mr. Huss' wallet was inventoried as personal property that

9 would be returned upon his release, but the Jail took all of the money

10 from Mr. Huss’ wallet ($39.30) as payment on the booking fee ($89.12).

11 The Jail did not inform Mr. Huss he was being charged a booking fee,

12 that there was a reimbursement policy in place, or that the money was

13 required to be returned if his charges were dropped or he was

14 acquitted. Mr. Huss was released from jail the next day after all of

15 the charges were dropped. Upon his release, his money was not

16 returned and he did not receive a copy of the Jail’s reimbursement

17 policy. The Jail eventually returned Mr. Huss’ money on February 23,

18 2005, approximately four months after the charges against him were

19 dropped, and after Mr. Huss’ lawyer sent a letter to Spokane County

20 stating that the Jail’s booking fee policy was unconstitutional.

21

In January 2005, the Jail modified its forms and procedures

22 related to the collection of booking fees. It is now a requirement

23

24
2 The “Spokane County Jail Claim Form For Reimbursement of
25 Intake Fees” specifically states that the Jail Staff will
investigate all claims and the decision to honor the claim is 26 based on that investigation.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY- 3

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 140 Filed 10/12/07

1 that each person booked into jail receive paperwork outlining methods

2 for obtaining reimbursement. Further, persons who are released and

3 not charged within 72 hours, automatically, without request, have

4 their booking fees returned if paid in part or in full. The Jail also

5 automatically voids any unpaid booking fee for all inmates who are

6 found not-guilty, acquitted, or have their charge dismissed.

7

On August 29, 2006, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for

8 partial summary judgment, holding that RCW § 70.48.390 and the booking

9 fees premised upon it are facially unconstitutional. The Defendant,

10 as well as the Intervenor, State of Washington, moved for

11 reconsideration on the basis of a number of issues, including standing

12 and mootness. The Court found that the Plaintiff does not have

13 standing to seek declaratory or injunctive relief, granted the

14 Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, and withdrew its prior order.

15 The Court directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing

16 addressing the question: “Is partial summary judgment appropriate on

17 any element of the Plaintiff’s suit for damages under [42 U.S.C.] §

18 1983?” Order Granting Motion For Reconsideration, Ct. Rec. 117, ¶ 6.

19

The parties’ supplemental briefing is now before the Court.

20 While the parties have taken the opportunity to address the issue of

21 damages, the Plaintiffs' underlying Motion For Partial Summary

22 Judgment, Ct. Rec. 27, seeks a ruling only on the issue of liability.

23 A ruling on the issue of damages would be premature at this stage of

24 the litigation. The present order, therefore, is limited to the sole

25 issue of whether the Defendant is liable to the lead Plaintiff, Mr.

26 Huss, and other similarly situated individuals under Section 1983.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY- 4

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 140 Filed 10/12/07

1

DISCUSSION

2

In the Ninth Circuit, a plaintiff must prove two elements to

3 state a cause of action under Section 1983: “1) that the Defendants

4 acted under color of state law; and 2) that the Defendants caused them

5 to be deprived of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the

6 United States.” Johnson v. Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.

7 1997). See also Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir.

8 2006).

9

A person acts under color of state law if he or she is a public

10 official and takes the offending action in relation to the powers of

11 his or her public position. Johnson, 113 F.3d at 117. In this case,

12 it is undisputed that the Defendant was acting and continues to act

13 under state law in assessing its booking fee. The sole issue to be

14 determined concerning Section 1983 liability is therefore whether the

15 Defendants caused the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be

16 deprived of a right secured by the Constitution.

17

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's assessment of the

18 booking fee deprived him of procedural due process of law. Procedural

19 due process questions are examined in two steps. First, the Court

20 must determine “whether there exists a liberty or property interest

21 which has been interfered with by the State.” Second, the Court must

22 determine “whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were

23 constitutionally sufficient." Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v.

24 Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 1909, 104 L. Ed. 2d 506,

25 514 (1989)(internal citations omitted).

26

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY- 5

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 140 Filed 10/12/07

1

A. Protected Property Interest

2

The Defendant concedes that the seizure of the Plaintiff’s money

3 implicates a protectible property interest. Therefore, the only issue

4 is what “process” is due to protect against an erroneous deprivation

5 of that interest. Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10, 99 S.Ct. 2612,

6 2617, 61 L. Ed. 2d 321, 329 (1979).

7

B. Constitutional Sufficiency of Attendant Procedures

8

In Matthews v. Eldridge, the Supreme Court set forth three

9 factors that normally determine whether an individual has received the

10 "process" that is "due" under the Constitution:

11

First, the private interest that will be affected by the

official action; second, the risk of an erroneous

12

deprivation of such interest through the procedures used,

and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute

13

procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's

interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and

14

administrative burdens that the additional or substitute

procedural requirement would entail.

15

424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 903, 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 33 (1976). By

16

weighing these concerns, courts can determine whether a State has

17

provided "the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a

18

meaningful manner," which is the fundamental requirement of due

19

process. Id. at 333, 96 S.Ct. at 902, 47 L. Ed. 2d at 32 (citation

20

omitted). "Applying this test, the [Supreme] Court usually has held

21

that the Constitution requires some kind of hearing before the State

22

deprives a person of liberty or property." Zinermon v. Burch, 494

23

U.S. 113, 127, 110 S. Ct. 975, 984, 108 L. Ed. 2d 100, 114-115 (1990).

24

"If there are no extraordinary circumstances, then some type of prior

25

hearing is required and an analysis of the three factors under

26

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY- 6

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 140 Filed 10/12/07

1 Matthews determines the formality and procedural requisites of the

2 hearing." Tellevik v. 31641 E. Rutherford St., 120 Wash.2d 68, 82,

3 838 P.2d 111, 118 (citing Matthews).

4

1. Private interest

5

The first Matthews factor requires identification of the nature

6 and weight of the private interest affected by the challenged action.

7 Matthews, 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. at 903, 41 L. Ed. 2d. “The

8 duration of any potentially wrongful deprivation of a property

9 interest is an important factor in assessing the impact of official

10 action on the private interest involved.” Mackey, 443 U.S. at 12, 99

11 S.Ct. at 2618, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 331 (citation omitted).

12

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's interest in the

13 temporary use of his $39.00 is "de minimus" because this "pocket

14 change" would not accrue interest while the Plaintiff had it in his

15 possession. This argument misconstrues the nature of the right at

16 stake. The right to possess and retain one's property is a

17 fundamental right, regardless of the property's value or its capacity

18 to generate interest. An individual who has $40 in his or her

19 possession can purchase a meal, a bus ticket, or a jacket. An

20 abstract right to receive $40 sometime in the future is small comfort

21 to someone with a present need to eat, travel, or remain warm.

22

The Defendant further argues that the deprivation of property at

23 issue in this case is "fleeting" because all criminal defendants are

24 entitled to a speedy trial and any delay in resolving a criminal case

25 will be at the defendant's own request. However, an individual's

26 decision to waive his or her right to a speedy trial should not

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY- 7

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 140 Filed 10/12/07

1 obligate that individual to forego procedural due process. Moreover,

2 for those persons who are entitled to the return of their booking fee,

3 the statute permits the wrongful deprivation of a person's money for a

4 considerable length of time (i.e. until such time as the person is

5 exonerated). Although the charges against the Plaintiff were dropped

6 one day after his arrest, his money was not returned for several

7 months. Under the present Policy, as amended in January 2005, booking

8 fees are automatically returned to those persons who are released and

9 not charged within 72 hours. Individuals released within 72 hours are

10 thus only deprived of their property for a short period of time.

11 However, for those persons who are not released within 72 hours, the

12 duration of the deprivation is dependent on the time it takes to

13 navigate through the reimbursement process.

14

For the reasons stated above, the Court holds that the

15 Plaintiff's interest in the continued use and possession of his money

16 is a significant interest entitled to considerable weight.

17

2. Risk of Erroneous Deprivation

18

Under the second prong of Matthews, the Court evaluates the risk

19 of erroneous deprivation of the interest at stake and the probable

20 value, if any, of additional or substantive safeguards. Matthews, 424

21 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. at 903, 41 L. Ed. 2d.

22

Under the Defendant's booking fee policy, everyone who is

23 arrested is deprived, at least temporarily, of the use of their

24 property. Those individuals who are eventually acquitted or whose

25 charges are dropped are entitled to the return of their booking fees.

26 These individuals are wrongly deprived of the use of their right to

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY- 8

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 140 Filed 10/12/07

1 use and possess their money from the time of booking until such time

2 as the fee is returned. A certain number of individuals who are

3 arrested will eventually be exonerated through one path or another.

4 For these individuals, erroneous deprivation is not a risk; it is a

5 certainty.

6

The Defendant argues that due process does not require notice and

7 a hearing prior to the assessment of a booking fee because the

8 post-deprivation hearing available to the Plaintiff satisfies his due

9 process rights. The Defendant relies on Mackey v. Montrym, arguing it

10 is dispositive of the issue before the Court.

11

In Mackey, the Supreme Court upheld a Massachusetts statute

12 mandating a 90-day suspension of a driver's license for refusing to

13 take a breath-analysis test upon arrest for driving while under the

14 influence. 443 U.S. at 19, 99 S.Ct. at 2621, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 335.

15 Applying the Mathews balancing test, the Supreme Court held that the

16 state's "compelling interest in highway safety justifies" the

17 automatic suspension of a driver's license "pending the outcome of the

18 prompt post-suspension hearing available." Id. The Supreme Court

19 recognized that individuals have a strong property interest in their

20 driver's license, but concluded the immediate post-suspension hearing

21 before the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to correct any clerical errors

22 and to resolve questions as to whether grounds exist for suspension of

23 the driver's license, was sufficient to satisfy the due process

24 requirement. Id. at 7-8, n. 5, 99 S.Ct. at 2616, n. 5, 61 L. Ed. at

25 327.

26

Mackey is distinguishable from the present case, however, because

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY- 9

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 140 Filed 10/12/07

1 the Jail's Policy does not provide for a prompt post-deprivation

2 hearing. Instead, the Defendant refers to Washington's "comprehensive

3 statutory procedure" whereby citizens may file claims against

4 governmental entities to seek the return of personal property. The

5 Defendant did not provide the Court with a citation for this

6 "comprehensive statutory procedure" or explain how this satisfies due

7 process. Nothing before the Court demonstrates that a "prompt"

8 hearing is required under this comprehensive statutory procedure.

9

Even if the Jail's policy did provide for a prompt,

10 post-deprivation hearing, the Defendant has not shown that such a

11 hearing would afford adequate due process. In Mackey, the "prompt

12 post-deprivation" hearing was sufficient to ensure adequate due

13 process for the automatic suspension of a driver's license because of

14 the state's "compelling interest in highway safety." Here, the

15 Defendant has not shown that it has a compelling interest in the

16 immediate collection of booking fees.

17

Thus, the Court holds that the risk of erroneous deprivation is

18 great and this factor weighs in favor of the Plaintiff.

19

3. Government's interest

20

Under the third prong of Matthews, the Court must evaluate the

21 Defendant’s interest underlying application of the Policy, including

22 the function involved, and any fiscal and administrative burdens that

23 additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail.

24 Matthews, 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. at 903, 41 L. Ed. 2d. at 502. The

25 interest that must be considered, however, is not the Defendant’s

26 general interest in collecting a booking fee, but the specific

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY- 10

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 140 Filed 10/12/07

1 interest in collecting the booking fee without a determination of

2 guilt and without notifying the individual at the time of booking.

3 See United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 56,

4 114 S.Ct. 492, 502, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993) (discussing third

5 consideration under Matthews); see also Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S.

6 1, 15-16, 111 S. Ct. 2105, 2115, 115 L. Ed. 2d 1, 16-17 (1991)

7 (analyzing the extent of the plaintiff’s interest in ex parte

8 attachment of property, not the plaintiff’s general interest in

9 property attachment).

10

The parties agree the primary purpose of the booking fee is to

11 raise revenue for the municipality. The Defendant has stated that

12 waiting to assess a booking fee until sentencing would impose a

13 hardship on the County. According to the Defendant, it may be unable

14 to recover booking fees from criminal defendants if these fees are not

15 assessed until sentencing. This assertion is supported by neither

16 evidence nor analysis. Consequently, it is insufficient to raise a

17 genuine issue of material fact concerning the burden additional

18 safeguards would place on the government. In the absence of such a

19 burden, it is clear that the first two Matthews factors outweigh the

20 Defendant’s interest in assessing a booking fee at the time of

21 booking.

22

C. Supplemental Authority

23

The Defendant has brought a recent decision of the Sixth Circuit

24 to the Court's attention. In Sickles v. Campbell County, the Sixth

25 Circuit held that procedural due process does not bar a municipal jail

26 from seizing the money in a person’s possession at the time of his or

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY- 11

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 140 Filed 10/12/07

1 her arrest and applying a portion of it to the cost of booking and

2 arraignment without a pre-deprivation hearing. No. 06-6055, 2007 U.S.

3 App. LEXIS 21163, *1-2 (Sept. 5, 2007). The Court, however, declines

4 to follow Sickles because the Sixth Circuit's analysis of the first

5 Matthews prong is unpersuasive and its analysis of the second prong is

6 distinguishable.

7

In applying the first Matthews factor, the Sixth Circuit assumed

8 that only private interests that rise to the level of “the historic

9 right to maintain control over one’s home” or government benefits that

10 constitute “the very means by which [people] live” deserve a pre-

11 deprivation hearing. However, the right to a pre-deprivation hearing

12 is the rule, rather than the exception. Tellevik, 120 Wash.2d at 82,

13 838 P.2d at 118.

14

The Sixth Circuit also found that the private interests at stake

15 were “small in absolute and relative terms, totaling $20 in [one

16 inmate’s case] and $110.27 in [another].” Id. at *7. This analysis

17 risks overlooking economic realities. Taking the facts of the present

18 case, $39.00 may be what the Defendant has termed "pocket change" to

19 one individual may mean a good deal to another. The import of a given

20 amount is relative to one's overall economic circumstances.

21

Moreover, Sickles is distinguishable from the present case in two

22 key respects. First, the Defendant’s Policy in the present case

23 provides that individuals who are eventually exonerated are entitled

24 to recover their booking fee. The Plaintiff is one such individual

25 who was deprived of his property, exonerated, and then left to wait

26 for the return of his money. In contrast, it does not appear that the

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY- 12

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 140 Filed 10/12/07

1 underlying law in Sickles entitled any inmate to the return of his or

2 her funds.

3

Second, even if the law in Sickles had contained such a

4 provision, neither of the Sickles plaintiffs had been exonerated.

5 Based on this fact, the Sixth Circuit declined to consider the effect

6 of the jails’ policies on “those arrested, booked and immediately

7 released because of mistake.” Id. at 14. Thus the only possibility

8 of erroneous deprivation before the Sickles court was the possibility

9 that the jails would withhold the wrong amount of money. Id. at *8.

10

CONCLUSION

11

Under Matthews v. Eldridge, the Court holds that the application

12 of Spokane County Jail's booking fee policy to the Plaintiff and other

13 similarly situated individuals deprived them of due process of law.

14 Seizure of all of the funds in the Plaintiffs' possession implicated a

15 significant private interest. When the Jail applies its Policy to

16 individuals like the Plaintiff, the risk of erroneous deprivation is

17 extreme compared to the municipality's interest in increasing revenue.

18 In this situation, due process requires a pre-deprivation hearing.

19 Accordingly,

20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

21

1. The Plaintiff’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment, Ct. Rec.

22 27, is GRANTED.

23

2. The Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Class

24 Certification, Ct. Rec. 102, is DENIED.

25

3. The Defendant shall submit its response to the Plaintiff’s

26 Motion for Class Certification within 20 days of the entry of this

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY- 13

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 140 Filed 10/12/07

1 order.

2

4. The Plaintiffs shall submit their reply within 20 days of the

3 filing of the Defendant's response.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby

5 directed to enter this order and furnish copies to counsel.

6

DATED this 12th day of October, 2007.

7

s/ Fred Van Sickle

8

Fred Van Sickle

United States District Judge

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 18 19 20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY- 14

 
 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3 SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and 4 others similarly situated,

5

Plaintiff,

6

7

v.

No. CV-05-0180-FVS
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

8
SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal 9 corporation,

10
Defendant,

11

12

v.

13
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF 14 WASHINGTON,

15
Intervenor Defendant.
16

17
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class Action,
18
Grant Approval of Notice to Class, and Appoint Class Counsel. (Ct.
19
Rec. 94). Plaintiff is represented by Breean Beggs, Jeffry K. Finer
20
and John D. Sklut. Defendant Spokane County is represented by Michael
21
A. Patterson and James H. Kaufman. Timothy Ford represents the
22
Washington State Attorney General.
23
I. BACKGROUND
24
Plaintiff, Shawn Huss, filed suit individually and on behalf of a
25
class of others similarly situated, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988,
26
seeking both monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 1

1 Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed December 21, 2005, alleges

2 that the booking fee policy of the Defendant Spokane County Jail ("the

3 Jail"), as well as the underlying statute, RCW § 70.48.390, are

4 facially unconstitutional in that they deprive individuals who are

5 arrested of their property without due process of law. (Ct. Rec. 61).

6

In May 1999, the Washington legislature passed RCW § 70.48.390,

7 authorizing city, county, and regional jails to take a $10.00 booking

8 fee from the person of each individual booked into jail. In May 2003,

9 the Washington legislature amended RCW § 70.48.390, allowing jails to

10 require each person who is booked into jail to pay a fee based on the

11 jail's actual booking costs or one hundred dollars, whichever is less.

12 The "fee is payable immediately from any money then possessed by the

13 person being booked" into jail. RCW § 70.48.390.

14

In accordance with RCW § 70.48.390, on or about February 24,

15 2004, the Spokane County Board of Commissioners passed Resolution 04-

16 0160, which authorized the Jail to develop and implement a procedure

17 to collect a fee from persons booked into jail. On May 5, 2004,

18 pursuant to Resolution 04-0160, the Jail adopted an official policy

19 ("the Policy") authorizing the collection of a booking fee. Under the

20 Policy, federal inmates are charged the federal daily rate while non-

21 federal inmates are charged the actual jail booking costs - - $89.12.

22 Pursuant to the statute, the Policy allows the fees to be taken

23 directly from any funds in the person's possession at the time of

24 booking. If the person does not have adequate funds to cover the

25 booking fee, a charge is assessed to the person's account. The Policy

26 does not provide for a pre-deprivation hearing or any other

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 2

1 opportunity for persons to contest the taking of their money.

2 Instead, the Jail adopted a separate reimbursement policy. Under this

3 reimbursement policy, the individual is required to prove the charges

4 against him or her were dropped or that he or she was acquitted, and

5 then, upon investigation by the Jail Staff, the inmate may be 6 reimbursed for the intake fee.1

7

In the present case, Plaintiff was arrested based on a domestic

8 violence complaint and booked into the Jail on October 31, 2004.

9 Plaintiff's wallet was inventoried as personal property that would be

10 returned upon his release, but the Jail took all of the money from

11 Plaintiff's wallet ($39.30) as payment on the booking fee ($89.12).

12 The Jail did not inform Plaintiff he was being charged a booking fee,

13 that there was a reimbursement policy in place, or that the money was

14 required to be returned if his charges were dropped or he was

15 acquitted. Plaintiff was released from jail the next day after all of

16 the charges were dropped. Upon his release, his money was not

17 returned and he did not receive a copy of the Jail's reimbursement

18 policy. The Jail eventually returned Plaintiff's money on February

19 23, 2005, approximately four months after the charges against him were

20 dropped, and after Plaintiff's lawyer sent a letter to Spokane County

21 stating that the Jail's booking fee policy was unconstitutional.

22

In January 2005, the Jail modified its forms and procedures

23 related to the collection of booking fees. It is now a requirement

24

25

1 The "Spokane County Jail Claim Form For Reimbursement of

Intake Fees" specifically states that the Jail staff will

26 investigate all claims and the decision to honor the claim is

based on that investigation.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 3

1 that each person booked into jail receive paperwork outlining methods

2 for obtaining reimbursement. Further, persons who are released and

3 not charged within 72 hours, automatically, without request, have

4 their booking fees returned if paid in part or in full. The Jail also

5 automatically voids any unpaid booking fee for all inmates who are

6 found not-guilty, acquitted, or have their charges dismissed.

7

On August 29, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for

8 partial summary judgment, holding that RCW § 70.48.390 and the booking

9 fees premised upon it are facially unconstitutional. (Ct. Rec. 75 at

10 14-15). Defendant, as well as the Intervenor, State of Washington,

11 moved for reconsideration on the basis of a number of issues,

12 including standing and mootness. On April 13, 2007, the Court found

13 that Plaintiff does not have standing to seek declaratory or

14 injunctive relief, granted Defendant's motion for reconsideration, and

15 withdrew its prior order. (Ct. Rec. 117). The Court directed the

16 parties to submit supplemental briefing addressing the question: "Is

17 partial summary judgment appropriate on any element of the Plaintiff's

18 suit for damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1983?" (Ct. Rec. 117 ¶ 6).

19

On October 12, 2007, after considering the parties' supplemental

20 briefing, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for partial summary

21 judgment as to liability. (Ct. Rec. 140). The Court determined that

22 Defendant is liable, under Section 1983, because the Jail's booking

23 fee policy deprived Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, of

24 property without due process of law. (Ct. Rec. 140). The Court set a

25 briefing schedule regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Class

26 Certification. That matter is now before the Court.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 4

1 II. LEGAL STANDARD

2

A. Rule 23

3

In order to certify a case as a class action, the party seeking

4 certification must satisfy the four prerequisites of Federal Rule of

5 Civil Procedure 23(a) and demonstrate that certification is

6 appropriate under one of the categories defined in Rule 23(b). Fed.

7 R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b). The party seeking certification bears the

8 burden of proving that it has satisfied all of the necessary

9 requirements. Dukes v. Walmart, Inc., 474 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2007);

10 Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.

11 2001).

12

Certification is permitted under Rule 23(a) when: 1) class

13 members are so numerous as to make joinder of all of them impractical

14 ("numerosity"); 2) common issues of law or fact exist among class

15 members ("commonality"); 3) the claims of the class representative are

16 typical of the class ("typicality"); and 4) the class representative

17 and class counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests

18 of absent class members ("adequacy of representation"). Fed. R. Civ.

19 P. 23(a); Stanton v. Boeing, Co., 327 F.3d. 938, 953 (9th Cir. 2003).

20

In the present case, Plaintiff seeks to certify a class under

21 Rule 23(b)(3). A class action may be maintained under Rule 23(b)(3)

22 when two elements are satisfied. First, questions of law and fact

23 common to the class must predominate over individual issues

24 ("predominance"). Second, the class-action mechanism must be superior

25 to the other available methods of adjudication ("superiority").

26 Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 615 (1991).

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 5

1

B. Scope of Review

2

In ruling on a motion for class certification, a trial court must

3 conduct a rigorous analysis to ensure that the requirements of Rule 23

4 have been satisfied. General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon,

5 457 U.S. 147, 161, 102 S. Ct. 2364, 2372, 72 L. Ed. 2d 740, 752

6 (1982). While the Court may look beyond the pleadings in making this

7 determination, certification is not the appropriate time to resolve

8 the merits of the case. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497,

9 509 (9th Cir. 1992). "It has long been recognized that arguments

10 evaluating the weight of evidence or the merits of a case are improper

11 at the class certification stage." Dukes, 474 F.3d 1214. As a

12 general rule, the trial court must accept the allegations of the

13 complaint as true at this stage. Jiminez v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 238

14 F.R.D. 241, 246 (C.D. Cal. 2006); LaCasse v. Wash. Mut., Inc., 198 F.

15 Supp. 2d 1255, 1261 (W.D. Wash. 2002).

16

The depth of review and explication necessary to resolve class

17 certification issues varies with the facts of the case. Chamberlain

18 v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952, 961 (9th Cir. 2005). Where "the

19 issues are plain enough from the pleadings to determine whether the

20 interests of the absent parties are fairly encompassed within the

21 named plaintiff's claim," an "almost conclusory" explanation may

22 suffice. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1023 (9th Cir.

23 1998) (citing General Telephone, 457 U.S. at 160).

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 6

1 III. DISCUSSION

2

A. RULE 23(a)

3

1. Numerosity

4

A proposed class satisfies the numerosity prerequisite when class

5 members are so numerous that joinder of all of them would be

6 impractical. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Joinder need not be

7 impossible, only impractical. Smith v. Univ. of Wash. Law Sch., 2 F.

8 Supp. 2d 1324, 1340 (W.D. Wash. 1998) (citing Harris v. Palm Springs

9 Alpine Estates, Inc., 329 F.2d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 1964)). The

10 appropriateness of certification depends on the facts of the

11 particular case rather than the existence of a particular minimum

12 number of plaintiffs. The party seeking certification need not

13 identify the precise number of potential class members. Id.

14

Plaintiff alleges that the proposed class includes "thousands of

15 individuals" who had jail booking fees unlawfully taken without due

16 process from May 5, 2004, to present (December 20, 2006). (Ct. Rec.

17 143 at 7). Generally, 40 or more members will satisfy the numerosity

18 requirement. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 47 F.3d

19 473, 483 (2nd Cir. 1995). The Court finds that Plaintiff has

20 satisfied numerosity.

21

2. Commonality

22

A proposed class satisfies the commonality prerequisite when

23 "there are questions of fact and law which are common to the class."

24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). The commonality requirement has been

25 liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Carlson, 166 F.R.D. 465, 472 (E.D.

26 Wash. 1996). Class members need not share all factual or legal issues

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 7

1 in order to satisfy the commonality requirement. Rather, "[t]he

2 existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates is

3 sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with

4 disparate legal remedies within the class." Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1019.

5

While Defendant asserts that Mr. Huss has "little if anything in

6 common with the diverse groups he seeks to represent" (Ct. Rec. 141 at

7 10), the undersigned does not agree. Here, all proposed class members

8 have common underlying facts and legal theories. Each had their due

9 process rights violated by the Jail depriving them of their property,

10 pursuant to the Jail's booking fee policy, without being provided

11 proper notice or a pre-deprivation hearing. A "common nucleus of

12 operative facts" is usually enough to satisfy the commonality

13 requirement. Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1017-18 (7th Cir.

14 1992). The Court concludes that Plaintiff has satisfied commonality.

15

3. Typicality

16

A proposed class representative satisfies the typicality

17 prerequisite when the claims of the class representative are typical

18 of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). A representative's claims

19 are typical of the class when they are "reasonably co-extensive with

20 those of absent class members; they need not be identical." Mendoza

21 v. Zirkle Fruit Co., 222 F.R.D. 439, 445 (E.D. Wash. 2004) (quoting

22 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020). "The test of typicality 'is whether other

23 members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based

24 on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether

25 other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.'"

26 Fernandez v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 232 F.R.D. 642, 645 (E.D.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 8

1 Wash. 2005) (quoting Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 869 (9th Cir.

2 2001)).

3

Like all proposed class members, Mr. Huss experienced a

4 deprivation of property, pursuant to the Jail's booking fee policy,

5 without due process. Although Mr. Huss later had his money returned 6 to him,2 it does not change the fact that the Jail took his property

7 without due process. The proposed class members were harmed by the

8 same course of conduct, and the injury of the proposed representative,

9 Mr. Huss, is similar to those of the proposed class members. The

10 Court finds that the proposed class representative is typical of the

11 class.

12

4. Adequacy of Representation

13

A proposed class representative satisfies the adequacy of

14 representation prerequisite when the proposed representative will

15 adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P.

16 23(a)(4). In making this determination, a trial court should make two

17 inquiries. First, the Court should determine whether either the

18 representative or the representative's counsel have any conflicts of

19 interest with the class. Second, the Court should consider whether

20 the representative will "prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of

21 the class." Fernandez, 232 F.R.D. at 645 (citing Hanlon, 150 F.3d at

22 1020).

23

24

2The fact that damage claims will vary among members of the

class does not defeat typicality. Typicality may exist even

25 though "there is a disparity in the damages claimed by the

representative parties and the other members of the class." 7A

26 Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1764,

at 235-236, 241 (1986).

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 9

1

Defendant has not demonstrated a conflict between Mr. Huss and

2 any proposed members of the class, nor has Defendant provided argument

3 with respect to whether Mr. Huss will vigorously prosecute this

4 matter. Representation is deemed adequate if the named plaintiffs and

5 their attorneys do not have conflicts with absent members and they

6 will prosecute this action vigorously on behalf of the entire class.

7 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. The Court finds that the class

8 representative, Mr. Huss, and counsel will "fairly and adequately"

9 protect the interests of all members in the class. Fed. R. Civ. P.

10 23(a)(4).

11

Based on the foregoing analysis, the undersigned concludes that

12 the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are satisfied in this case. However,

13 in order to obtain certification of a class under Rule 23, the moving

14 party must establish not only that the putative class satisfies all

15 four requirements of section (a), discussed above, but also that it

16 fits within at least one of the categories specified in section (b).

17 Blake v. Arnett, 663 F.2d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 1981).

18

B. RULE 23(b)(3): Common Questions of Law or Fact Predominate

19

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) permits a class action if common

20 questions of law or fact predominate over an individual's questions:

21

. . . the questions of law or fact common to the members of the

class predominate over any questions affecting only individual

22

members, and that a class action is superior to other available

methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the

23

controversy. The matters pertinent to the findings include: (A)

the interest of members of the class in individually controlling

24

the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent

and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already

25

commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the

desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of

26

the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely

to be encountered in the management of a class action.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 10

1 Therefore, to bring an action under Rule 23(b)(3), first, common

2 questions of law or fact must predominate over the individual issues

3 presented in the dispute. Next, it must be shown that class treatment

4 is a superior form of relief, considering the four criteria listed in

5 Rule 23(b)(3).

6

1. Predominance

7

Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate when common

8 questions predominate over individual issues among class members.

9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The predominance inquiry tests whether a

10 proposed class is sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by

11 representation. Amchem, 521 U.S. at 624. "Implicit in the

12 satisfaction of the predominance test is the notion that the

13 adjudication of common issues will help achieve judicial economy."

14 Zinser, 253 F.3d at 1189.

15

All potential class members were booked into the Jail and were

16 deprived of their property without due process pursuant to the Jail's

17 booking fee policy. The Court has determined that Defendant is liable

18 for this constitutional deprivation to "Plaintiff and other similarly

19 situated individuals". (Ct. Rec. 140 at 13). Common questions of law

20 and fact exist to the entire class and thus predominate in this

21 matter. In fact, Defendant appears to concede that the "'taking'

22 issue" does not seem to vary. (Ct. Rec. 141 at 13). Although

23 Defendant appears to allege that the issue of damages presents an

24 individual issue (Ct. Rec. 141 at 14), it is well established that

25 individual damage issues generally do not defeat predominance. See

26 Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 238 F.R.D. 482, 494 (C.D.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 11

1 Cal. 2006) (collecting cases). The Court finds that Plaintiff has

2 satisfied the predominance requirement.

3

2. Superiority

4

Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate when

5 adjudicating the case as a class action would be superior to other

6 methods of adjudication. In determining whether a class satisfies the

7 superiority requirement, the trial court should compare the class

8 action mechanism to the potential mechanisms for resolving the case.

9 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1023. The court should also consider "whether the

10 objectives of the particular class action procedure will be achieved

11 in the particular case." Id. (citing Wright & Miller, Federal

12 Practice & Procedure § 1779).

13

The only alternative to class certification in this case would be

14 individual actions. Individual actions would squander judicial time

15 and resources to no purpose. It is also likely, as observed by

16 Plaintiff, that the small claims of the proposed class members would

17 prevent them from seeking individual relief. Moreover, Defendant

18 fails to contest the issue of superiority. The Court finds that

19 Plaintiff has satisfied the superiority requirement.

20 IV. THE PROPOSED CLASS

21

A. Standing

22

Defendant asserts that Mr. Huss does not have standing to

23 challenge the booking procedure of absent class members who were not

24 booked into the Jail for domestic violence, for those booked into the

25 Jail following the policy change on January 5, 2005, and for those

26 whose booking fees have not been returned. (Ct. Rec. 141 at 4-5).

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 12

1

In the context of a class action, the individual class

2 representative must have standing to bring the claims he seeks to

3 assert on behalf of the class. O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488,

4 494, 94 S. Ct. 669, 675, 38 L. Ed. 2d 674, 682 (1974). A party has

5 standing to bring a claim when he or she has suffered an actual

6 injury, the defendant's conduct caused the injury, and action by the

7 court is capable of redressing the injury. Lujan v. Defenders of

8 Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992).

9

The reason an individual is booked into the Jail is of no

10 significance to the actual deprivation of property, without due

11 process, which occurs upon the collection of a booking fee. A later

12 refund does not distinguish members of the class, except with respect

13 to potential damages. The 2005 revised policy also does not

14 distinguish members of the class, for although the new policy mandates

15 that booking fees shall be automatically returned to persons not

16 charged within 72 hours, it still deprives individuals booked into the

17 Jail of their property without due process. Mr. Huss, similar to all

18 potential class members, was deprived of property without due process.

19 It has been found by this Court that Defendant is liable, under

20 Section 1983, for this deprivation. (Ct. Rec. 140). The Court finds

21 that Mr. Huss has standing to represent the proposed class.

22

B. Defined

23

A class proposed under Rule 23(b)(3) must be sufficiently well

24 defined so that the Court may provide individual notice to all members

25 who can be identified through reasonable effort. Mendoza, 222 F.R.D.

26 at 442. A class does not have to be defined with precision at the

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 13

1 outset. 7A C. Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 1760, at

2 117 (2d ed. 1986). The test is whether the description of the class

3 is "sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible for

4 the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member."

5 Id. at 121.

6

Plaintiff's proposed class consists of all individuals who were

7 assessed a booking fee at the Spokane County Jail in violation of

8 their constitutionally protected rights. On December 20, 2006,

9 Plaintiff requested that the class be certified as "the class of all

10 persons deprived of their property without due process of law through

11 the mandatory collection of a jail booking fee by the Spokane County

12 Jail from May 5, 2004 through the present [December 20, 2006]." (Ct.

13 Rec. 94-2 at 2). This request is consistent with the allegations

14 described in Plaintiff's second amended complaint. (Ct. Rec. 61).

15

Defendant argues that, should the Court grant Plaintiff's motion

16 for class certification, the class should be limited only "to those

17 people who were booked into Spokane County Jail prior to January 5,

18 2005 and who were never charged with a crime and released within 72

19 hours or less and who allege significant impact such as Mr. Huss has."

20 (Ct. Rec. 141 at 16).

21

Defendant essentially contends that all individuals should be

22 excluded from the proposed class unless their situation mirrors that

23 of Mr. Huss. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. A class

24 representative's claims need not be identical with those of absent

25 class members. Mendoza v, 222 F.R.D. at 445. As previously

26 determined by this Court, "[u]nder the Defendant's booking fee policy,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 14

1 everyone who is arrested is deprived, at least temporarily, of the use

2 of their property." (Ct. Rec. 140 at 8). The Constitutional

3 violation at issue in this case occurs following an arrest for any

4 matter and at the moment of the taking without due process. It would

5 be inappropriate to narrow the proposed class to only include members

6 who encountered the exact circumstances as Mr. Huss.

7

Accordingly, the Court finds that the class shall be certified as

8 follows:

9

The class of all individuals, from May 5, 2004 to December 20,

2006, who were deprived of their property pursuant to the booking

10

fee policy of the Spokane County Jail without being provided the

constitutionally guaranteed due process of law.

11

The Court finds this class is clear and precise and appropriate given

12

the facts and allegations in this case.

13

V. CLASS COUNSEL

14

A Court that certifies a class must appoint class counsel. Fed.

15

R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A). In evaluating Plaintiff's motion, the Court

16

has considered the following factors to the extent they are reflected

17

in the record: "the work counsel has done in identifying or

18

investigating potential claims in the action," "counsel's experience

19

in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and claims of the

20

type asserted in the action," "counsel's knowledge of the applicable

21

law," and "the resources counsel will commit to representing the

22

class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(C). Having considered these

23

factors, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff's counsel of record

24

will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Fed.

25

R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B). Accordingly, it is ordered that Plaintiff's

26

counsel of record shall serve as class counsel in this matter.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 15

1 VI. CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

3

1. The Plaintiff's Motion For Class Certification (Ct. Rec. 94)

4 is GRANTED.

5

2. This action shall proceed as a class action on behalf of a

6 class consisting of all individuals, from May 5, 2004 to December 20,

7 2006, who were deprived of their property pursuant to the booking fee

8 policy of the Spokane County Jail without being provided the

9 constitutionally guaranteed due process of law.

10

3. Shawn Huss shall serve as the class representative.

11

4. Attorneys for the Center for Justice, Breean L. Beggs,

12 Jeffry K. Finer and John D. Sklut, shall serve as counsel for the

13 class.

14

5. A telephonic scheduling conference in this matter shall be

15 held on August 26, 2008, at 11:00, by the parties calling the Court's

16 conference line at 509-458-6382.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby

18 directed to enter this order and furnish copies to counsel.

19

DATED this 25th day of August, 2008.

20

s/Fred Van Sickle

21

Fred Van Sickle

United States District Judge

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - 16

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 176 Filed 10/22/08

1

2

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5 SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and 6 others similarly situated,

7
Plaintiff,

8

9

v.

10
SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal 11 corporation,

No. CV-05-0180-FVS
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL, STAYING ACTION, AND VACATING SCHEDULING ORDER

12
Defendant,

13

14

v.

15
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF 16 WASHINGTON,

17

Intervenor Defendant.

18

19
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant's September 4,
20
2008 motion for reconsideration of the Court's order granting
21
Plaintiff's motion to certify the matter as a class action. (Ct. Rec.
22
166). Also before the Court is Plaintiffs' second motion for
23
reconsideration filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) on October
24
10, 2008. (Ct. Rec. 173). Defendant's second motion for
25
reconsideration requests relief from this Court's October 12, 2007
26
order granting Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . - 1

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 176 Filed 10/22/08

1 liability. (Ct. Rec. 173). In the alternative, Defendant requests

2 that the Court certify the matter for interlocutory review pursuant to

3 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Id. Plaintiff is represented by Breean Beggs,

4 Jeffry K. Finer and John D. Sklut. Defendant Spokane County is

5 represented by Michael A. Patterson and James H. Kaufman. Timothy

6 Ford represents intervenor Defendant the Washington State Attorney

7 General.

8

Although Defendant's motions for reconsideration are each noted

9 for oral argument, the Court finds oral argument is not necessary.

10 Pursuant to this Court's authority under Local Rule 7.1(h)(3), the

11 Court vacates the hearings on these motions and shall herein address

12 the motions without oral presentation.

13

BACKGROUND

14

Plaintiff, Shawn Huss, filed suit individually and on behalf of a

15 class of others similarly situated, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988,

16 seeking both monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

17 Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed December 21, 2005, alleges

18 that the booking fee policy of the Defendant Spokane County Jail ("the

19 Jail"), as well as the underlying statute, RCW § 70.48.390, are

20 facially unconstitutional in that they deprive individuals who are

21 arrested of their property without due process of law. (Ct. Rec. 61).

22

In May 1999, the Washington legislature passed RCW § 70.48.390,

23 authorizing city, county, and regional jails to take a $10.00 booking

24 fee from the person of each individual booked into jail. In May 2003,

25 the Washington legislature amended RCW § 70.48.390, allowing jails to

26 require each person who is booked into jail to pay a fee based on the

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . - 2

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 176 Filed 10/22/08

1 jail's actual booking costs or one hundred dollars, whichever is less.

2 The "fee is payable immediately from any money then possessed by the

3 person being booked" into jail. RCW § 70.48.390.

4

In accordance with RCW § 70.48.390, on or about February 24,

5 2004, the Spokane County Board of Commissioners passed Resolution 04-

6 0160, which authorized the Jail to develop and implement a procedure

7 to collect a fee from persons booked into jail. On May 5, 2004,

8 pursuant to Resolution 04-0160, the Jail adopted an official policy

9 authorizing the collection of a booking fee. Under the policy,

10 federal inmates are charged the federal daily rate while non-federal

11 inmates are charged the actual jail booking costs - - $89.12.

12 Pursuant to the statute, the policy allows the fees to be taken

13 directly from any funds in the person's possession at the time of

14 booking. If the person does not have adequate funds to cover the

15 booking fee, a charge is assessed to the person's account. The policy

16 does not provide for a pre-deprivation hearing or any other

17 opportunity for persons to contest the taking of their money.

18 Instead, the Jail adopted a separate reimbursement policy. Under this

19 reimbursement policy, the individual is required to prove the charges

20 against him or her were dropped or that he or she was acquitted, and

21 then, upon investigation by the Jail Staff, the inmate may be

22 reimbursed for the intake fee.

23

In the present case, Plaintiff was arrested based on a domestic

24 violence complaint and booked into the Jail on October 31, 2004.

25 Plaintiff's wallet was inventoried as personal property that would be

26 returned upon his release, but the Jail took all of the money from

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . - 3

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 176 Filed 10/22/08

1 Plaintiff's wallet ($39.30) as payment on the booking fee ($89.12).

2 The Jail did not inform Plaintiff he was being charged a booking fee,

3 that there was a reimbursement policy in place, or that the money was

4 required to be returned if his charges were dropped or he was

5 acquitted. Plaintiff was released from jail the next day after all of

6 the charges were dropped. Upon his release, his money was not

7 returned and he did not receive a copy of the Jail's reimbursement

8 policy. The Jail returned Plaintiff's money on February 23, 2005,

9 approximately four months after the charges against him were dropped,

10 and after Plaintiff's lawyer sent a letter to Spokane County stating

11 that the Jail's booking fee policy was unconstitutional.

12

In January 2005, the Jail modified its forms and procedures

13 related to the collection of booking fees. It is now a requirement

14 that each person booked into jail receive paperwork outlining methods

15 for obtaining reimbursement. Further, persons who are released and

16 not charged within 72 hours, automatically, without request, have

17 their booking fees returned if paid in part or in full. The Jail also

18 automatically voids any unpaid booking fee for all inmates who are

19 found not-guilty, acquitted, or have their charges dismissed.

20

On August 29, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for

21 partial summary judgment, holding that RCW § 70.48.390 and the booking

22 fees premised upon it are facially unconstitutional. (Ct. Rec. 75 at

23 14-15). Defendant, as well as the State of Washington, moved for

24 reconsideration on the basis of a number of issues, including standing

25 and mootness. On April 13, 2007, the Court found that Plaintiff does

26 not have standing to seek declaratory or injunctive relief, granted

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . - 4

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 176 Filed 10/22/08

1 Defendant's motion for reconsideration, and withdrew its prior order.

2 (Ct. Rec. 117). The Court directed the parties to submit supplemental

3 briefing addressing the question: "Is partial summary judgment

4 appropriate on any element of the Plaintiff's suit for damages under

5 28 U.S.C. § 1983?" (Ct. Rec. 117 ¶ 6).

6

On October 12, 2007, after considering the parties' supplemental

7 briefing, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for partial summary

8 judgment as to liability. (Ct. Rec. 140). The Court determined that

9 Defendant is liable, under Section 1983, because the Jail's booking

10 fee policy deprived Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, of

11 property without due process of law. (Ct. Rec. 140). The Court

12 thereafter set a briefing schedule regarding Plaintiff's Motion for

13 Class Certification.

14

On August 25, 2008, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion For

15 Class Certification. (Ct. Rec. 162). The Court determined that Shawn

16 Huss shall serve as the class representative in this matter and

17 certified the class as follows:

18

The class of all individuals, from May 5, 2004 to December 20,

2006, who were deprived of their property pursuant to the booking

19

fee policy of the Spokane County Jail without being provided the

constitutionally guaranteed due process of law.

20

(Ct. Rec. 162).

21

On September 4, 2008, Defendant filed a motion for

22

reconsideration challenging the Court's definition of the class. (Ct.

23

Rec. 166). Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant's motion for

24

reconsideration.

25

On October 10, 2008, Defendant filed an additional motion for

26

reconsideration, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), contesting the

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . - 5

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 176 Filed 10/22/08

1 Court's order granting Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment

2 as to liability (Ct. Rec. 140). (Ct. Rec. 173).

3

DISCUSSION

4 I. FIRST MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

5

It is a basic principle of federal practice that "courts

6 generally . . . refuse to reopen what has been decided . . . ."

7 Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 (1912); see,

8 Magnesystems, Inc. v. Nikken, Inc., 933 F.Supp. 944, 948 (C.D. Cal.

9 1996). However, reconsideration is appropriate if the court: (1) is

10 presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) has committed clear

11 error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) is

12 presented with an intervening change in controlling law. School

13 District 1J, Multnomah County v. A C and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

14 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236, 114 S.Ct. 2742 (1994);

15 see, also, Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. D.E.A., 15 F.3d 1131,

16 1134 (D.C. Cir. 1994). There may also be other highly unusual

17 circumstances warranting reconsideration. School District 1J, 5 F.3d

18 at 1263.

19

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a party may move to

20 amend a judgment within ten days of the filing of the judgment. Fed.

21 R. Civ. P. 59(e). However, such a motion for reconsideration "offers

22 an 'extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of

23 finality and conservation of judicial resources.'" Carroll v.

24 Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 12 James Wm.

25 Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000)). "A

26 Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . - 6

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 176 Filed 10/22/08

1 evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been

2 raised earlier in the litigation." Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945; Kona

3 Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). "Nor

4 is reconsideration to be used to ask the Court to rethink what it has

5 already thought." Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contrs., Inc.,

6 215 F.R.D. 581, 582 (D. Ariz. 2003). See, also, Taylor v. Knapp, 871

7 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding denial of a motion for

8 reconsideration proper where "it presented no arguments that had not

9 already been raised in opposition to summary judgment"); Backlund v.

10 Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985) (same). "Motions for

11 reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors

12 of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Publisher's

13 Resource, Inc. v. Walker Davis Publications, Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 561

14 (7th Cir. 1985) (quoting Keene Corp. v. International Fidelity Ins.

15 Co., 561 F.Supp. 656, 665-666 (N.D. Ill. 1982), aff'd, 736 F.2d 388

16 (7th Cir. 1984)); see, Novato Fire Protection Dist. v. United States,

17 181 F.3d 1135, 1142, n. 6 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S.

18 1129, 120 S.Ct. 2005 (2000). Absent exceptional circumstances, only

19 three types of arguments do provide an appropriate basis for a motion

20 for reconsideration: arguments based on newly discovered evidence,

21 arguments that the court has committed clear error, and arguments

22 based on "an intervening change in the controlling law." 89 Orange

23 St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).

24

Defendant fails to present newly-discovered evidence to warrant

25 reconsideration and is not contending that there has been an

26 intervening change in controlling law. Defendant essentially argues

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . - 7

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 176 Filed 10/22/08

1 that there is clear error of law with respect to the class definition

2 and that the definition of the class should therefore be corrected to

3 prevent manifest injustice. (Ct. Rec. 166).

4

A. Timeframe Included in the Class Definition

5

The Court's definition of the class included all individuals,

6 "from May 5, 2004 to December 20, 2006 (the date the instant motion

7 was filed)." (Ct. Rec. 162 at 15).

8

May 5, 2004, represents the date the Jail adopted the policy

9 authorizing the collection of a booking fee. December 20, 2006, as

10 indicated by the Court within its definition, represents the date 11 Plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed.1

12

1. August 30, 2006

13

Defendant argues that because booking fees were no longer

14 assessed in Spokane County after August 30, 2006, the class definition

15 should be revised to reflect the proper timeframe that Spokane County

16 Jail's booking fee policy was actually in effect, May 5, 2004 through

17 August 30, 2006. (Ct. Rec. 166 at 4). Harold J. Brady, the Spokane

18 County Jail Commander since March 16, 2005, declares, "[t]o the best

19 of my knowledge, intake fees were no longer assessed at booking in the

20 Spokane County Jail after August 30, 2006." (Ct. Rec. 167 ¶ 5).

21

Even considering Mr. Brady's declaration as a true statement of

22 the Jail's policy in August of 2006, it does not result in an invalid

23

24
1Plaintiff's December 20, 2006 motion for class 25 certification requested that the class be certified as all
persons deprived of their property without due process of law 26 "from May 5, 2004 through the present [December 20, 2006]." (Ct.
Rec. 94-2 at 2).

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . - 8

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 176 Filed 10/22/08

1 definition of the class as defined by the Court. If the Jail

2 discontinued taking booking fees on August 30, 2006, no members of the

3 class would be identified after this date. However, if an individual

4 did, in fact, have a booking fee assessed by the Jail between August

5 30, 2006, and December 20, 2006, he may be included in the class.

6 There is no legal error established as a result of the Court's

7 timeframe for the class.

8

2. Booking Fee Policy as of January 2005

9

Defendant also asserts that Individuals booked at the Jail after

10 January 2005 should not be included in the Class since the Jail

11 modified its procedures related to the collection of booking fees in

12 January of 2005. (Ct. Rec. 166 at 8-9). Defendant made an identical

13 argument in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

14 As indicated above, reconsideration should not be used "to ask the

15 Court to rethink what it has already thought." Motorola, Inc., 215

16 F.R.D. at 582.

17

Nevertheless, the Court notes, as previously explained, although

18 the January 2005 policy mandates that individuals booked into jail

19 receive paperwork outlining methods for reimbursement and booking fees

20 are automatically returned to persons not charged within 72 hours, it

21 still results in the deprivation of individuals' property upon booking

22 into the Jail without due process. The actual deprivation of

23 property, without due process, occurs upon the collection of a booking

24 fee without an opportunity to contest the taking of the money. A

25 later refund or notice of methods for reimbursement does not void the

26 earlier deprivation without due process. Accordingly, the Court's

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . - 9

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 176 Filed 10/22/08

1 timeframe for the class, May 5, 2004 through December 20, 2006, is not

2 erroneous.

3

B. Inclusion of Convicted Individuals

4

Defendant additionally argues that the Court committed clear

5 error by including convicted individuals in the class definition.

6 (Ct. Rec. 166 at 4-8). This, too, is an argument Defendant raised in

7 opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. As stated

8 above, reconsideration should not be used "to ask the Court to rethink

9 what it has already thought." Motorola, Inc., 215 F.R.D. at 582.

10

As this Court previously concluded, "[u]nder the Defendant's

11 booking fee policy, everyone who is arrested is deprived, at least

12 temporarily, of the use of their property." (Ct. Rec. 140 at 8). The

13 Constitutional violation at issue in this case occurs following an

14 arrest and at the moment of the taking without due process. The

15 actual deprivation of property, without due process, occurs upon the

16 collection of a booking fee. Whether the individual is later

17 convicted or acquitted does not distinguish members of the class,

18 except with respect to potential claims for damages. The fact that

19 damage claims will vary among members of the class does not defeat

20 typicality. Typicality may exist even though "there is a disparity in

21 the damages claimed by the representative parties and the other

22 members of the class." 7A Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice

23 and Procedure § 1764, at 235-236, 241 (1986). Furthermore, it is well

24 established that individual damage issues generally do not defeat

25 predominance. See, Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 238

26 F.R.D. 482, 494 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (collecting cases). Defendant fails

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . - 10

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 176 Filed 10/22/08

1 to demonstrate legal error as a result of the Court's definition of

2 the class.

3

C. Redefine Class

4

Defendant requests that the Court modify its definition of the

5 class in light of the arguments made in Defendant's motion for

6 reconsideration. (Ct. Rec. 166 at 9-10). Defendant requests the

7 Court redefine the class as follows:

8

All individuals who were deprived of their property pursuant to

the booking fee policy of the Spokane County Jail from May 5,

9

2004 to January 6, 2005, who were booked and not charged, or who

were acquitted, or whose charges were dismissed.

10

(Ct. Rec. 166 at 10).

11

However, as determined above, the timeframe of the defined class,

12

as well as the decision to not limit the class to only those

13

individuals who were not later convicted, was not erroneous. A class

14

proposed under Rule 23(b)(3) must be sufficiently well defined so that

15

the Court may provide individual notice to all members who can be

16

identified through reasonable effort. Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co.,

17

222 F.R.D. 439, 442 (E.D. Wash. 2004). The test is whether the

18

description of the class is "sufficiently definite so that it is

19

administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a

20

particular individual is a member." 7A C. Wright et al., Federal

21

Practice & Procedure § 1760, at 121 (2d ed. 1986). The Class, as

22

defined in the Court's August 25, 2008 order (Ct. Rec. 162), is clear

23

and precise and appropriate given the facts and allegations in this

24

case.

25

///

26

///

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . - 11

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 176 Filed 10/22/08

1 II. SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

2

A. Rule 60(b)(6) Motion

3

Defendant's request for reconsideration with respect to the

4 Court's order granting Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment

5 as to liability (Ct. Rec. 140) is based upon Rule 60(b)(6). Rule

6 60(b)(6) is a catch-all ground for relief. It provides, in pertinent

7 part, that a "court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment,

8 order, or proceeding for the following reasons: . . . (6) any other

9 reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." Fed. R.

10 Civ. P. 60(b)(6). "Rule 60(b)(6) has been used sparingly as an

11 equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice. The rule is to be

12 utilized only where extraordinary circumstances [exist]." United

13 States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.),

14 cert. denied, 510 U.S. 813, 114 S.Ct. 60, 126 L.Ed.2d 29 (1993).

15

On October 12, 2007, the Court concluded, under Matthews v.

16 Eldridge, that the application of the Jail's booking fee policy

17 deprived Plaintiff and others similarly situated of their property

18 without due process of law. (Ct. Rec. 140). In addressing the

19 Matthews v. Eldridge factors, the Court found that Plaintiff's

20 interest in the continued use and possession of his money is a

21 significant interest, the risk of erroneous deprivation is great, and

22 Defendant's interest in the immediate collection of booking fees at

23 the time of booking was not compelling. (Ct. Rec. 140).

24

As stated in Defendant's motion for reconsideration, "the

25 opportunity to present reasons, either in person or in writing, why

26 proposed action should not be taken is a fundamental due process

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . - 12

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 176 Filed 10/22/08

1 requirement." (Ct. Rec. 173 at 6) (citations omitted). The Due

2 Process Clause requires reasonable notice and a fair opportunity to be

3 heard before the issues are decided. (Ct. Rec. 173 at 7) (citations

4 omitted) (emphasis added). The Jail's booking fee policy permits fees

5 to be taken directly from any funds in a person's possession at the

6 time of booking without an opportunity for these individuals to

7 contest the taking of their money. Plaintiff and others similarly

8 situated were not given an opportunity to respond prior to the

9 deprivation of their property and were thus denied due process. (Ct.

10 Rec. 140). The contentions provided by Defendant in the Rule 60(b)(6)

11 motion for reconsideration (Ct. Rec. 173) do not persuade the Court

12 that this finding is erroneous. Defendant's motion fails to present

13 extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

14 Accordingly, Defendant's Rule 60(b)(6) motion for reconsideration is

15 denied.

16

B. Certification for Interlocutory Review

17

Defendant requests, in the alternative, that the Court certify

18 this matter for interlocutory review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

19 (Ct. Rec. 173 at 10). Section 1292(b) of Title 28 of the United State

20 Code provides, in pertinent part:

21

"When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not

otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion

22

that such order involves a controlling question of law as to

which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and

23

that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance

the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in

24

writing in such order. The Court of Appeals . . . may thereupon,

in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order .

25

. . ."

26 "[Section] 1292(b) acts as a safety valve for serious legal questions

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . - 13

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 176 Filed 10/22/08

1 taking the case out of the ordinary run." Kennedy v. Bell Helicopter

2 Textron, Inc., 283 F.3d 1107, 1116 (9th Cir. 2002). Certification for

3 appeal under § 1292(b) is appropriate on an issue "raising an

4 important and unsettled question of law whose disposition will advance

5 the ongoing proceedings." James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d

6 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2002).

7

Defendant must meet three requirements in order to prosecute an

8 interlocutory appeal. First, the decision it seeks to appeal must

9 involve a "controlling question of law." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

10 Second, there must be "substantial ground for difference of opinion"

11 concerning the question. Third, an immediate appeal must "materially

12 advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." 28 U.S.C. §

13 1292(b).

14

Here, the Court finds that all requirements have been met for the

15 Court to certify this matter for interlocutory review pursuant to 28

16 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Defendant's alternative motion to certify for

17 interlocutory review the Court's order granting Plaintiff's motion for

18 partial summary judgment as to liability (Ct. Rec. 140) is granted.

19

The Court being fully advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

20

1. Defendant's First Motion for Reconsideration (Ct. Rec. 166)

21 is DENIED.

22

2. Defendant's Second Motion for Reconsideration (Ct. Rec. 173)

23 is DENIED.

24

3. Defendant's request for certification of an interlocutory

25 appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is GRANTED.

26 ///

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . - 14

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 176 Filed 10/22/08

1

4. All further proceedings in this matter shall be stayed

2 pending a disposition on appeal. The parties shall file a joint

3 report advising the Court of the status of this case immediately

4 following a determination on the interlocutory appeal.

5

5. The Court's Amended Scheduling Order (Ct. Rec. 164) is

6 VACATED. The Court will set another scheduling conference following

7 the decision on appeal as appropriate.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby

9 directed to enter this order and furnish copies to counsel.

10

DATED this 22nd day of October, 2008.

11

S/Fred Van Sickle

12

Fred Van Sickle

Senior United States District Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . - 15

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 225 Filed 03/19/10

1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6 SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and others similarly situated,
7
Plaintiff,
8
vs.
9
SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal 10 corporation,

No. CV 05-180-FVS ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL

11

Defendants.

12

13
THIS MATTER having come before the Court for hearing, pursuant t o the
14
15 Order of this Court, dated Septem ber 18, 2009, on t he application of the Settling

16 Parties for approval of the settlem ent set forth in the Class Action Settlement

17 Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement” or the “ Agreement”), and due and
18
adequate notice having been given t o the Settlement Class (as defined in the
19
20 Agreement) as required in said Order, and th e Court having considered all papers

21 filed and proceedi ng had herein and otherwise being fully informed in t he
22
premises and good cause appearing th erefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
23
24 ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

25

ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL - 1

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 225 Filed 03/19/10

1

1. This Order incorporates by re ference the definitions in the

2 Agreement, and all italicized term s herein sha ll have the same meanings as set

3 forth in the Agreement.
4
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and
5
6 over all members of the Settlement Class.

7

3. The notice given to Class Members and the other matters set forth in

8
the Agreement was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including:
9

10 (i) individual Mailed Notice to all Class Members who could be identified

11 through reasonable effort based upon Sp okane County records, National Change
12
of Address Searches, and Adva nced Address Searches for Class Members whose
13
14 Mailed Notice was returned as undeliverable; (ii) Publication Notice twice in

15 English in the Spokesman Review and once in Spanish i n La Voz. Said notice

16 provided due and adequate notice of these proceedings and of the matters set forth
17
in the Agreement, including the proposed Settlement, to all persons entitled to
18
19 such notice, and said not ice fully satisfi ed the requirements of Rule 23 of the

20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process.
21
4. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Fe deral Rules of Civil Procedure, this
22
23 Court hereby approves the Settlement as set forth in the Agreement and the

24 proposed Plan of Allocation as set forth in the Mailed Notice. The Court finds that
25
said Settlement and the Plan of Allocation are, in all respects, fair, reasonable and

ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL - 2

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 225 Filed 03/19/10

1 adequate with respect to the Settlement Class, and directs that the Settlement be

2 consummated in accordance with the te rms and conditions set forth in the

3 Agreement and t he Plan of All ocation. The Court hereby Orders, Adjudges and
4
Decrees that the Settlement Agreement is binding on the Named Plaintiff, the
5
6 Settlement Class, and the Defendant according to its terms.

7

5. Class Counsel are hereby awarded, from the Settlement Amount,

8
attorneys’ fees in the am ount of $147, 487.48 and the reim bursement of their
9

10 expenses in the am ount of $3,376.39. Both amounts are to be paid in accordance

11 with the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
12
6. The Court has considered the request that it award an Incentive
13
14 Award to the Named Plaintiff in this action. The Court grant s the request. Given

15 the time and energy the Named Plaintiff devoted to this case as the sole

16 representative of the class, as well as the favorable results achieved, an Incentive
17
Award of $10,000.00 shall be paid to the Named Plaintiff, Shawn Hu ss. The
18
19 Incentive Award shall be paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the

20 Agreement.
21
7. The Court hereby dism isses this action in its entirety as to
22
23 Defendant, Spokane County, with prejudice and without costs (except as

24 otherwise provided in the Agreement).
25

ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL - 3

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 225 Filed 03/19/10

1

8. This Order is a fi nal judgment in the action as to all claim s among

2 the Defendant, on the one hand, and the Named Plaintiff and all Class Members,

3 on the other.
4
9. Without further order of the C ourt, the parties m ay agree to
5
6 reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Agreement.

7

10. The parties’ joint motion for final approval of proposed class action

8
settlement (Ct. Rec. 213) is GRANTED.
9

10

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Execu tive is hereby directed to

11 enter this order, furnish copies to counsel and CLOSE THE FILE.

12

13

Dated this 19th day of March, 2010.

14

15

S/Fred

Van Sickle________________________

FRED

VAN SICKLE

16

SENIOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL - 4

 
 CaCseas2e:025:-0c5v-c0v0-108001-8F0V-FSVS DDocoucmumenetn2t 02607 FFiilleedd 0099//1186//029009

1
Michael A. Patterson, WSBA 7976 2 PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH &

3 KALZER, INC., P.S. 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500
4 Seattle, WA 98121

5

Tel. 206.462.6700 Attorneys for Defendant

6

Hon. Fred Van Sickle

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

11

SHAWN HUSS, a single man, and others similarly situated,

12

Plaintiff,

No. CV 05-180-FVS

13

vs.

14 SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal 15 corporation,

16

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE

17

WHEREAS, a certified class action matter, entitled Shawn Huss v. Spokane

18

County, Case No. CV-05-180-FVS, is currently before the Honorable Fred Van
19

20 Sickle in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington

21 for purposes of settlement approval;
22
WHEREAS, the Named Plaintiff and Defendant have applied to the Court,
23
24 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, for an Order preliminarily approving the

25 settlement of the above-named action in accordance with the Settlement

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE - 1 CV 05-180-FVS

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle • WA • 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 • Fax 206.462.6701

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 207 Filed 09/18/09

1 Agreement which, together with the exhibits thereto, sets forth the terms and

2 conditions for a proposed settlement of this matter;

3

WHEREAS, the Court has previously certified the Named Plaintiff’s

4
claims for class treatment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); and
5

6

WHEREAS, having read and considered the parties’ joint motion for

7 preliminary approval, and the Settlement Agreement and Notice Forms attached
8
thereto, and based on the preliminary approval hearing on September 14, 2009,
9
10 the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:

11

1. This Order (“Preliminary Approval Order”) incorporates by

12
reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreement; all italicized terms shall
13
14 have the same meanings set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

15

2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and

16 over all parties to this action, including all Class Members and the Defendant.
17
3. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement and the
18
19 Plan of Allocation to be fair, reasonable, and adequate.

20

4. The Settlement Class in this matter is the same class identified and

21
certified by this Court, and consists of:
22

23

“all individuals from May 5, 2004 to December 20, 2006, who

were deprived of their property pursuant to the booking fee

24

policy of the Spokane County Jail without being provided the

25

constitutionally guaranteed due process of law.”

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE - 2 CV 05-180-FVS

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle • WA • 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 • Fax 206.462.6701

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 207 Filed 09/18/09

1 Individuals “who were deprived of their property” without being provided due

2 process of law includes only those individuals who were charged a booking fee

3 and who actually paid money towards that fee.
4
5. The Court approves, as to form and content, the Proposed Settlement
5
6 Agreement, which is annexed as Exhibit A to the Memorandum in Support of the

7 Parties’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement

8
and Form and Manner of Notice.
9

10

6. The Court approves, as to form and content, the Official Notice of

11 Class Action and Publication Notice, which is annexed as Exhibit B to the
12
Memorandum in Support of the Parties’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of
13
14 Proposed Class Action Settlement and Form and Manner of Notice.

15

7. The date and time of the Fairness Hearing shall be added to the

16 Mailed Notice and the Publication Notice before they are mailed and published,
17
respectively, in accordance with paragraph 12(a) and (b) below.
18

19

8. The Court finds that the mailing, publication, and distribution of the

20 Mailed Notice and Publication Notice substantially in the manner and form set
21
forth in paragraphs 10(a), and (b) below, constitutes the best notice practicable
22
23 under the circumstances, including individual notice to all Settlement Class

24 members who can be identified through reasonable effort, and constitutes valid,
25

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE - 3 CV 05-180-FVS

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle • WA • 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 • Fax 206.462.6701

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 207 Filed 09/18/09

1 due, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto, complying fully with the

2 requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due process.

3

9. The Court approves the following schedule:

4

Notice mailed to Class Members
5

Within 30 days after this Order of Preliminary

6

Approval is entered by the

Court.
7

8

Publication Notice published in

No later than 14 days after

English in the Spokesman Review

the Mailed Notice

9

Last day for class members to object to No later than 90 days before

10

Settlement

11

Final Approval Hearing

the Final Approval Hearing (December 16, 2009) March 16, 2010 at 1:00 p.m.

12

Last day for class members to submit a No later than 90 days before

Class Claim Form or opt-out of the

the Final Approval Hearing

13

Settlement

(December 16, 2009)

14
10. Notice shall be issued as set forth below:
15

16

(a) Commencing within 30 days from the date of this Preliminary

17 Order, Defendant shall cause to be mailed, by first class mail, copies of the
18
Mailed Notice and Claim Form to all Class Members who can be identified by
19
20 Defendant with reasonable effort at each such Class Member’s last known

21 address; Class Counsel will create this list based upon the Spokane County Jail

22
records and data systems; and
23
(b) Within 14 days from the date of Mailed Notice, or 44 days
24
25 from the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, Class Counsel shall cause the

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE - 4 CV 05-180-FVS

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle • WA • 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 • Fax 206.462.6701

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 207 Filed 09/18/09

1 Publication Notice to be published twice in the Spokesman Review. One

2 publication shall run on a Sunday, and the other will run on a weekday.

3

11. At or prior the Fairness Hearing (as defined below), Defendants

4
shall file with the Court and serve on Class Counsel proof by declaration or
5

6 affidavit of the mailing and publication described in paragraphs 10(a) and 9(b)

7 above.
8
12. A hearing (the “Fairness Hearing”) shall be held on March 16,
9
10 2010 at 1:00 p.m., before the Honorable Fred Van Sickle, United States District

11 Court Judge, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
12
Washington, 920 West Riverside Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201, for the purpose
13
14 of determining (a) whether the proposed Settlement as set forth in the Agreement

15 is fair, reasonable and adequate and should be approved by the Court; (b) whether

16 an Order of Final Judgment and Dismissal, substantially in the form of Exhibit B
17
to the Agreement, should be entered; (c) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
18
19 is fair and reasonable and should be approved by the Court; (d) whether and in

20 what amount attorneys’ fees and costs should be awarded to Class Counsel;
21
(e) whether and in what amount Incentive Awards should be issued to the Named
22
23 Plaintiffs, and to rule upon such other matters as the Agreement contemplates and

24 as the Court may deem just and proper.
25

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE - 5 CV 05-180-FVS

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle • WA • 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 • Fax 206.462.6701

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 207 Filed 09/18/09

1

13. A joint motion for Final Approval of the Class Settlement and Final

2 Judgment and Dismissal, and all papers in support of the Settlement shall be filed

3 at least fifteen (15) days prior to the Fairness Hearing.
4
14. Any Class Member may appear and show cause as to why the Court
5
6 should or should not (a) approve the proposed Settlement as set forth in the

7 Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate; (b) enter the Order of
8
Final Judgment and Dismissal, substantially in the form of Exhibit B to the
9
10 Agreement; (c) award attorneys’ fees and costs to Settlement Counsel and/or

11 (d) award Incentive Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, provided, however, that no
12
person shall be heard with respect to, or shall be entitled to contest, the foregoing
13
14 matters unless on or before December 16, 2009, that person has mailed notice of

15 his, her or its intention to appear, setting forth briefly each objection and the basis

16 therefore, together with copies of any papers and briefs in support of said
17
objections and proof of membership in the Class, to: the Clerk of the Court at the
18
19 following address: Thomas S. Foley U.S. Courthouse, 920 West Riverside

20 Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201.
21
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any Settlement Class member who
22
23 does not make his or her objection in the manner provided for herein, shall be

24 deemed to have waived such objection and shall forever be foreclosed from

25
making any objection to the foregoing matters.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE - 6 CV 05-180-FVS

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle • WA • 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 • Fax 206.462.6701

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 207 Filed 09/18/09

1

15. The Court may adjourn the Fairness Hearing from time to time and

2 without further notice to the Class. The Court reserves the right to approve the

3 Settlement at or after the Fairness Hearing with such modifications as may be
4
consented to by the Settling Parties and without further notice to the Class. The
5
6 Court further reserves the right to enter a Final Order, dismissing the action with

7 prejudice as to the Settling Defendant and against the Named Plaintiff and the

8
Class at or after the Fairness Hearing and without further notice to the Class.
9

10

16. Upon entry of the Final Order, the Named Plaintiff, and each of the

11 Class Members, on behalf of themselves, their successors, assigns, and any other
12
person claiming (now and in the future) through or on behalf of them, and
13
14 regardless of whether any such Named Plaintiff or Class Member ever seeks or

15 obtains by any means any distribution from the Settlement Fund, shall be bound

16 by the Final Order and by the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
17
Upon entry of the Final Order, the Court will dismiss the action in its
18
19 entirety as to Defendant Spokane County, with prejudice and without costs

20 (except as otherwise provided in the Agreement).
21
17. All reasonable costs and expenses incurred in identifying and
22
23 providing notice to Class Members and in administering the Settlement Fund shall

24 be paid as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
25

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE - 7 CV 05-180-FVS

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle • WA • 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 • Fax 206.462.6701

Case 2:05-cv-00180-FVS Document 207 Filed 09/18/09

1

18. The Court retains jurisdiction over all proceedings arising out of or

2 related to the Settlement Agreement.

3

19. If for any reasons the Settlement Agreement does not become

4
effective in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, this
5

6 Preliminary Approval Order shall be rendered null and void and shall be vacated

7 nunc pro tunc.
8
20. Without further order of the Court, the Settling Parties may agree to
9
10 reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of this

11 Preliminary Approval Order or the Agreement.
12
21. Pending final determination as to whether the Settlement, as set forth
13
14 in the Settlement Agreement, should be approved, no Class Member shall

15 commence, prosecute, pursue, or litigate any Released Claims against the

16 Defendant, whether directly, representatively, or in any other capacity, and

17
regardless of whether or not such Class Member has appeared in the action.
18

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

21

Dated: 9/18/09

22

23

___________

24

s/ Fred Van Sickle
FRED VAN SICKLE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

25

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE - 8 CV 05-180-FVS

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S.
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle • WA • 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 • Fax 206.462.6701

 
 Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 1 of 23
STAYED,CLOSED,APPEAL,LC02
Eastern District of Washington U.S. District Court (Spokane) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05−cv−00180−FVS

Huss v. Spokane County Assigned to: Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle Demand: $500,000 Case in other court: 9CCA Vol. Dismissed, 09−35074 Huss
9CCA Vol. Dismissed, 10−35290 S. Baker 9CCA Vol. Dismissed, 10−35291 Hotrum 9CCA Dismissed, 10−35331 Brault 9CCA Dismissed, 10−35334 Williams 9CCA Dismissed, 10−35339 McDonnell 9CCA Vol. Dismissed, 10−35346 Lipinski 9CCA Dismissed, 10−35347 M. Baker 9CCA Dismissed, 10−35353 Rittermann 9CCA Dismissed, 10−35354 Burton Cause: 28:1983 Civil Rights Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/13/2005 Date Terminated: 03/19/2010 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Shawn Huss a single man and others similarly situated

represented by Breean Lawrence Beggs Paukert &Troppmann PLLC 522 West Riverside Avenue Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 509−232−7760 Fax: 509−232−7762 Email: bbeggs@pt−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffry Keith Finer Jeffry Finer Law Office P.O. Box 2147 Spokane, WA 99201 − − − − − − − − − or − − − − − − − − Center for Justice, 35 West Main, Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99201 509−835−5211 Fax: 509−835−3867 Email: jeffry@finer−bering.com TERMINATED: 06/29/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John D Sklut Center For Justice 35 West Main Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99203 509−835−5211 Email: jsklut@cforjustice.org TERMINATED: 05/13/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

represented by

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 2 of 23

Spokane County a municipal corporation

Michael Alexander Patterson Patterson Buchanan Fobes &Leitch Inc PS 2112 Third Avenue Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121 206−462−6700 Fax: 206−462−6701 Email: map@pattersonbuchanan.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Frank J Conklin C K Carlton PS 818 W Riverside Avenue 640 Lincoln Building Spokane, WA 99201 509−747−6877 Fax: 15097476950 Email: fjconklin@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 07/10/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Henry Kaufman Spokane County Prosecutor's Office 1115 West Broadway Second Floor Spokane, WA 99260 509−477−3612 Email: JKaufman@spokanecounty.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Defendant Attorney General for the State of Washington
Unknown Shappa Baker
Unknown Roger Michael Hotrum

represented by Timothy D Ford Office of the Attorney Geneeral 1125 Washington Street SE P O Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504−0100 360−586−0756 Fax: 360−664−2963 Email: TimF@atg.wa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Shappa Baker 787553 AIRWAY HEIGHTS CORRECTIONS CENTER PO BOX 2049 AIRWAY HEIGHTS, WA 99001−2049 PRO SE
represented by Roger Michael Hotrum 923581 AIRWAY HEIGHTS CORRECTIONS CENTER PO BOX 2049 AIRWAY HEIGHTS, WA 99001−2049 PRO SE

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 3 of 23

Unknown David Joseph Brault
Unknown Jeremy M Williams
Unknown Robert McDonnell
Unknown John Lipinski TERMINATED: 04/27/2010
Unknown Michael W. Baker
Unknown Robin Anthony Rittermann
Unknown John Burton

represented by David Joseph Brault #739351 AIRWAY HEIGHTS CORRECTIONS CENTER PO BOX 2049 AIRWAY HEIGHTS, WA 99001−2049 PRO SE
represented by Jeremy M Williams 848032 AIRWAY HEIGHTS CORRECTIONS CENTER PO BOX 2049 AIRWAY HEIGHTS, WA 99001−2049 PRO SE
represented by Robert McDonnell #285655 AIRWAY HEIGHTS CORRECTIONS CENTER PO BOX 2049 AIRWAY HEIGHTS, WA 99001−2049 PRO SE
represented by John Lipinski #893835 AIRWAY HEIGHTS CORRECTIONS CENTER PO BOX 2049 AIRWAY HEIGHTS, WA 99001−2049 PRO SE
represented by Michael W. Baker #289995 AIRWAY HEIGHTS CORRECTIONS CENTER PO BOX 2049 AIRWAY HEIGHTS, WA 99001−2049 PRO SE
represented by Robin Anthony Rittermann 884465 Airway Heights Correction Center PO Box 2049 Airway Heights, WA 99001−2049 PRO SE
represented by John Burton 837603 AIRWAY HEIGHTS CORRECTIONS CENTER PO BOX 2049 AIRWAY HEIGHTS, WA 99001−2049

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 4 of 23 PRO SE

Date Filed 06/13/2005 06/15/2005 06/29/2005 06/29/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005
07/14/2005 08/03/2005 08/17/2005
10/11/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Spokane County ( Filing fee $ 250; Receipt # 061679). Summons issued. Filed by Shawn Huss. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(CR, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Shawn Huss re Spokane County. (CR, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/15/2005)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by James Henry Kaufman on behalf of Spokane County (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
4 PROOF OF SERVICE by Spokane County re 3 Notice of Appearance (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
5 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
6 MEMORANDUM in Support re 5 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
7 DECLARATION by Breean Beggs in Support re 5 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
8 DECLARATION by Shawn Huss in Support re 5 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
9 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 5 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing set for 8/8/2005 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 5 , before Chief Judge Fred Van Sickle (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
10 MOTION to Certify Class Action; Grant Approval of Notice to Class; and Appoint Class Counsel by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
11 MEMORANDUM in Support re 10 MOTION to Certify Class Action; Grant Approval of Notice to Class; and Appoint Class Counsel filed by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
12 DECLARATION by Breean Beggs in Support re 10 MOTION to Certify Class Action; Grant Approval of Notice to Class; and Appoint Class Counsel filed by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
13 DECLARATION by Shawn Huss in Support re 10 MOTION to Certify Class Action; Grant Approval of Notice to Class; and Appoint Class Counsel filed by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
14 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 10 MOTION to Certify Class Action; Grant Approval of Notice to Class; and Appoint Class Counsel: Motion Hearing set for 8/8/2005 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 10 , before Chief Judge Fred Van Sickle (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
15 AMENDED COMPLAINT For Violations of Civil Rights against Shawn Huss. Jury Demand. Filed by Shawn Huss.(Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
16 STIPULATION re 10 MOTION to Certify Class Action; Grant Approval of Notice to Class; and Appoint Class Counsel, 5 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
17 ORDER STRIKING MOTIONS; re 16 Stipulation filed by Shawn Huss; Motions Stricken: 10 MOTION to Certify Class Action; Grant Approval of Notice to Class; and Appoint Class Counsel filed by Shawn Huss; 5 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Shawn Huss. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
18 MOTION for Joinder Continuance of Due Date of Spokane County's Answer by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 10/11/2005)

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 5 of 23

10/11/2005
10/14/2005
10/28/2005 11/02/2005 11/15/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005
11/22/2005 11/22/2005 11/22/2005 11/22/2005 11/23/2005 11/23/2005 11/23/2005 11/23/2005 11/25/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005

19 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 18 MOTION for Joinder Continuance of Due Date of Spokane County's Answer: Motion Hearing set for 10/14/2005 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 18 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
20 TEXT ORDER (no pdf attached) granting 18 Joint Motion for Continuance. Defendant's shall file their answer to the amended complaint on or before November 1, 2005.. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (KJH, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
21 ANSWER to Complaint by Spokane County.(Kaufman, James) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
22 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE : Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 12/2/2005 09:00 AM in Spokane before Judge Fred Van Sickle. (Attachments: # 1 Consent)(CP, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
23 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Certificate by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
24 MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
25 DECLARATION by Breean Beggs in Support re 24 MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint filed by Shawn Huss. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
26 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 24 MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint: Motion Hearing set for 12/16/2005 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 24 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
28 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
29 STATEMENT OF Undisputed FACTS re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
30 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing set for 12/19/2005 at 06:30 AM Without Oral Argument for 27 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
31 NOTICE by Spokane County Association of Counsel (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
32 MOTION to Strike Requests for Admissions by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
33 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 32 MOTION to Strike Requests for Admissions: Motion Hearing set for 12/19/2005 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 32 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
34 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and In the Alternative for Order Allowing Oral Argument and Declaration of James H. Kaufman by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
35 NOTICE of Appearance by Frank J Conklin on behalf of Spokane County (Conklin, Frank) (Entered: 11/25/2005)
36 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6) Alternatively for Summary Judgment by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
37 STATEMENT OF FACTS re 36 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6) Alternatively for Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 11/28/2005)

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 6 of 23

11/28/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005
11/28/2005
11/29/2005 11/29/2005 12/02/2005 12/02/2005 12/02/2005 12/02/2005 12/02/2005
12/02/2005
12/02/2005
12/05/2005 12/05/2005
12/08/2005

38 MEMORANDUM in Support re 36 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6) Alternatively for Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
39 AFFIDAVIT by James H. Kaufman in Support re 36 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6) Alternatively for Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
40 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 36 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6) Alternatively for Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing set for 1/13/2006 at 11:30 AM Spokane for 36 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
41 PROOF OF SERVICE by Spokane County re 37 Statement of Facts, 38 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 39 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 40 Notice of Hearing on Motion,, 36 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6) Alternatively for Summary Judgment (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
42 RESPONSE to Motion re 24 MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
43 RESPONSE to Motion re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
44 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 24 MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint filed by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
45 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
46 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Fred Van Sickle : Scheduling Conference held on 12/2/2005. (Not Reported) (CP, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
47 MOTION to Withdraw Motion to Strike Requests for Admissions by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
48 RESPONSE to Motion re 34 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and In the Alternative for Order Allowing Oral Argument and Declaration of James H. Kaufman filed by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
49 DECLARATION by Breean L. Beggs in Opposition re 34 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and In the Alternative for Order Allowing Oral Argument and Declaration of James H. Kaufman and In Support of Plaintiff's Response filed by Shawn Huss. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit email)(Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
50 SCHEDULING ORDER: Pretrial Conference set for 10/24/2006 08:30 AM in Spokane before Judge Fred Van Sickle. Jury Trial set for 11/13/2006 09:00 AM in Spokane before Judge Fred Van Sickle.. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (VR, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
51 ORDER STRIKING MOTION granting 47 Motion to Withdraw. Withdrawing 32 Motion to Strike . Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (RF, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
52 Amended NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 36 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6) Alternatively for Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing set for 2/3/2006 at 01:30 PM Spokane for 36 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
53 RESPONSE to Motion re 34 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and In the Alternative for Order Allowing Oral Argument and Declaration of James H. Kaufman filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 12/08/2005)

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 7 of 23

12/09/2005 12/16/2005
12/16/2005 12/16/2005 12/16/2005 12/16/2005 12/19/2005
12/21/2005 12/30/2005 02/10/2006
02/13/2006
02/24/2006 02/24/2006 02/28/2006
03/17/2006

54 RESPONSE to Motion re 36 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6) Alternatively for Summary Judgment filed by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
55 ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING; Granting in part and Denying in part 34 Motion to Strike, Granting 24 Motion for Leave to File. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Ct. Rec. 27 is RESCHEDULED for February 3, 2006, with oral argument at 1:30 PM. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (LMS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
56 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 36 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6) Alternatively for Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
57 STATEMENT OF FACTS re 36 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6) Alternatively for Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
58 AFFIDAVIT by Kay Donder in Support re 36 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6) Alternatively for Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
59 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 56 Reply Memorandum, 57 Statement of Facts, 58 Affidavit in Support of Motion by James Henry Kaufman on behalf of Spokane County (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
60 Amended NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 36 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6) Alternatively for Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing set for 2/10/2006 at 01:30 PM Spokane for 27 and for 36 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
61 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against Spokane County. Filed by Shawn Huss.(Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
62 ANSWER to Complaint SECOND AMENDED by Spokane County.(Kaufman, James) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
63 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Fred Van Sickle : Motion Hearing held on 2/10/2006 re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Shawn Huss, 36 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6) Alternatively for Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Reported by: Mark Snover) (CP, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
64 ORDER AND CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 28 USC 2403; re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Shawn Huss; The Attorney General of Washington shall notify this Court on or before 2/27/06, in a pleading filed with the Clerk of the Court, as to whether the State of Washington will intervene in this case and participate in all future proceedings. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (cc: Rob McKenna, Attorney General of Washington)(LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
65 NOTICE of Appearance by Timothy D Ford on behalf of Attorney General for the State of Washington (Ford, Timothy) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
66 RESPONSE to Certification Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2403(b) by Attorney General for the State of Washington. (Ford, Timothy) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
67 ORDER ON BRIEFING SCHEDULE; Motion Hearings Re−set for 4/21/2006 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 36 Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6) Alternatively for Summary Judgment; and for 27 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, before Judge Fred Van Sickle. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
68 RESPONSE to Motion re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Attorney General for the State of Washington. (Ford, Timothy) (Entered: 03/17/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 8 of 23

03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 07/11/2006 07/11/2006 07/25/2006
07/25/2006 08/29/2006
09/07/2006
09/13/2006 09/13/2006 09/13/2006 09/13/2006 09/13/2006 09/14/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/21/2006

69 RESPONSE re 68 Response to Motion For Partial Summary Judgment by Shawn Huss. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
70 DECLARATION by Timothy Fischer In Support of Plaintiff's re 69 Response by Shawn Huss. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
71 DECLARATION by Breean Beggs In Support of Plaintiff's re 69 Response by Shawn Huss. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
72 Joint MOTION to Continue by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
73 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 72 Joint MOTION to Continue: Motion Hearing set for 7/28/2006 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 72 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
74 ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING granting Crt. Rec. 72 Motion to Continue. The Scheduling Conference Order Crt. Rec. 50 and the deadlines contained therein are STRICKEN. A Telephonic Scheduling/Status Conference will be held on 09/19/06 at 2:00 P.M. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (VJ, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
A TELEPHONIC Scheduling Conference is set for 9/19/2006 at 2:00 P.M. before Judge Fred Van Sickle. The Plaintiff shall initiate the call to Judge Van Sickle at (509) 458−5250. (VJ, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
75 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT − denying 36 Motion to Dismiss; and granting 27 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/30/2006)
76 NOTICE of Hearing − Text entry; no PDF document. − By Court: Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 9/22/2006 11:00 AM in Spokane before Judge Fred Van Sickle. (moved from 9/19/06) Plaintiff shall initiate the call.(KJH, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 09/07/2006)
77 MOTION for Reconsideration by Attorney General for the State of Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order proposed order granting motion)(Ford, Timothy) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
78 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 77 MOTION for Reconsideration: Motion Hearing set for 10/10/2006 at 06:30 PM Spokane for 77 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Ford, Timothy) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
79 PROOF OF SERVICE by Attorney General for the State of Washington re 78 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 77 MOTION for Reconsideration (Ford, Timothy) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
80 First MOTION for Reconsideration by Spokane County. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Kaufman, James) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
81 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 80 First MOTION for Reconsideration: Motion Hearing set for 10/10/2006 at 06:30 PM Spokane for 80 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
82 STATUS REPORT Joint by Shawn Huss. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
83 Praecipe filed by Attorney General for the State of Washington Re Ct. Rec. 77 Proposed Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration. (Ford, Timothy) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
84 Praecipe filed by Spokane County Re Ct. Rec 80 (Proposed) Order Granting Spokane County's Motion for Reconsideration. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
85 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE − Text entry; no PDF document.: Scheduling Conference RESET for 9/22/2006 09:45 AM in Yakima before Judge Fred Van Sickle. (KJH, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 09/21/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 9 of 23

09/22/2006 09/26/2006
09/27/2006 09/29/2006 10/05/2006 10/13/2006 10/23/2006
11/13/2006
12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/21/2006

86 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Fred Van Sickle : Scheduling Conference held on 9/22/2006. (NOT REPORTED) (KJH, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
87 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER: The following Hearigs have been set, Oral Argument on Motions to Reconsider Crt. Rec. 77 and 80 will be heard on 11/6/2006 at 1:30 PM in Spokane before Judge Fred Van Sickle. A Telephonic Pretrial Conference is set for 8/21/2007 at 8:30 AM before Judge Fred Van Sickle. The Bench Trial is set for 9/10/2007 at 9:00 AM in Spokane before Judge Fred Van Sickle. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (VJ, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
88 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 80 First MOTION for Reconsideration, 77 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Shawn Huss. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
89 DECLARATION by Eileen Bisson in Support re 80 First MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
90 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 80 First MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
91 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 77 MOTION for Reconsideration AG's Reply to Pl's Mem in Opp'n to Defs' Mot for Reconsideration filed by Attorney General for the State of Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit certificate of service)(Ford, Timothy) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
92 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion − By Court − Text entry; no PDF document. Oral argument on 77 MOTION for Reconsideration, 80 First MOTION for Reconsideration:is RESET for 11/13/2006 at 10:00 AM Spokane for 77 and for 80 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle. No oral notice having been given, counsel may contact chambers if this schedule creates a hardship. (KJH, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
93 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Fred Van Sickle : Motion Hearing held on 11/13/2006 re 80 First MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Spokane County, 77 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Attorney General for the State of Washington. (Reported by: Mark Snover) (CP, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
94 MOTION to Certify Class Grant Approval of Notice and Appoint Class Counsel by Shawn Huss. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2)(Sklut, John) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
95 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 94 MOTION to Certify Class Grant Approval of Notice and Appoint Class Counsel : Motion Hearing set for 1/16/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 94 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Sklut, John) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
96 MEMORANDUM in Support re 94 MOTION to Certify Class Grant Approval of Notice and Appoint Class Counsel filed by Shawn Huss. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
97 DECLARATION by Breean Beggs in Support re 94 MOTION to Certify Class Grant Approval of Notice and Appoint Class Counsel filed by Shawn Huss. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Sklut, John) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
98 DECLARATION by Shawn Huss in Support re 94 MOTION to Certify Class Grant Approval of Notice and Appoint Class Counsel filed by Shawn Huss. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
99 NOTICE by Shawn Huss proposed notice to members of class (class action) (Sklut, John) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
100 Praecipe filed by Shawn Huss: Re 97 Declaration in Support of Motion. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 12/21/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 10 of 23

01/16/2007 01/16/2007 01/16/2007
01/22/2007
02/27/2007 03/05/2007 03/09/2007 03/09/2007 03/09/2007
03/12/2007 03/22/2007 04/03/2007 04/03/2007 04/13/2007 04/13/2007 04/13/2007 04/13/2007

101 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition re 94 MOTION to Certify Class Grant Approval of Notice and Appoint Class Counsel filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
102 MOTION to Strike 94 MOTION to Certify Class Grant Approval of Notice and Appoint Class Counsel by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
103 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 102 MOTION to Strike 94 MOTION to Certify Class Grant Approval of Notice and Appoint Class Counsel : Motion Hearing set for 2/12/2007 at 06:30 PM for 102 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
104 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 102 MOTION to Strike 94 MOTION to Certify Class Grant Approval of Notice and Appoint Class Counsel Plaintiff's Memorandum in Reply to Defendants Objection to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification filed by Shawn Huss. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
105 SUPPLEMENT re 80 First MOTION for Reconsideration by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
106 OBJECTIONS re 105 Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration by Shawn Huss. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 03/05/2007)
107 MOTION to Stay and Affidavit to Stay Further Discovery Until Reconsideration Motion is Determined by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
108 MEMORANDUM in Support re 107 MOTION to Stay and Affidavit to Stay Further Discovery Until Reconsideration Motion is Determined filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
109 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 107 MOTION to Stay and Affidavit to Stay Further Discovery Until Reconsideration Motion is Determined : Motion Hearing set for 4/3/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 107 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
110 Letter from Glenn Smith #880144 to US District Court Eastern District of Washington dated 03/06/07. Per Law Clerk − Docket as a letter and Chambers will address the request. (VJ, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
111 Letter from Shappa Baker #787553 to District Court, Honorable James R. Larsen dated 03/19/07. (VJ, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
112 DECLARATION by John Sklut in Opposition re 107 MOTION to Stay and Affidavit to Stay Further Discovery Until Reconsideration Motion is Determined filed by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
113 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 107 MOTION to Stay and Affidavit to Stay Further Discovery Until Reconsideration Motion is Determined filed by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
114 Joint MOTION to Continue Discovery Deadline by all parties. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
115 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 114 Joint MOTION to Continue Discovery Deadline : Motion Hearing set for 4/13/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 114 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Sklut, John) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
116 TEXT ORDER (no pdf) granting 114 Motion to Continue. A scheduling conference will be scheduled to set out new deadlines.. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (KJH, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
117 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION re Ct. Rec. 80 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED; Ct. Rec. 77 Defendant's Intervener's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT; and Ct. Rec. 107 Defendant's Motion to Stay is DENIED AS MOOT. The Court's prior Order, Ct. Rec. 75 , granting Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 11 of 23

04/27/2007 04/30/2007 05/02/2007 05/09/2007 05/09/2007
05/09/2007 05/09/2007 05/09/2007 05/10/2007
05/11/2007 05/14/2007 05/21/2007 05/21/2007 05/23/2007
05/29/2007

WITHDRAWN. The Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are DISMISSED. (VJ, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
118 MOTION for Reconsideration re 117 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,,, Order on Motion to Stay,, by Shawn Huss. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Huss &Breithaupt# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Sklut, John) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
119 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 118 MOTION for Reconsideration re 117 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,,, Order on Motion to Stay,, : Motion Hearing set for 5/22/2007 at 06:30 PM for 118 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Sklut, John) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
120 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE : Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 5/25/2007 09:00 AM before Judge Fred Van Sickle. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form)(CP, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
121 MOTION to Strike 118 MOTION for Reconsideration re 117 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,,, Order on Motion to Stay,, Declaration of Shawn Huss and Declaration of Happy Briethaupt by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
122 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 121 MOTION to Strike 118 MOTION for Reconsideration re 117 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,,, Order on Motion to Stay,, Declaration of Shawn Huss and Declaration of Happy Briethaupt : Motion Hearing set for 5/22/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 121 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
123 MOTION to Expedite Hearing Defendant's Motion to Strike Declaration of Shawn Huss and Declaration of Happy Breithaupt by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
124 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 123 MOTION to Expedite Hearing Defendant's Motion to Strike Declaration of Shawn Huss and Declaration of Happy Breithaupt : Motion Hearing set for 5/22/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 123 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
125 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 118 MOTION for Reconsideration re 117 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,,, Order on Motion to Stay,, filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
126 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition re 121 MOTION to Strike 118 MOTION for Reconsideration re 117 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,,, Order on Motion to Stay,, Declaration of Shawn Huss and Declaration of Happy Briethaupt filed by Shawn Huss. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
127 SUPPLEMENT re 117 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,,, Order on Motion to Stay,, 126 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion, by Shawn Huss. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
128 REPLY re 125 Reply Memorandum re: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration by Shawn Huss. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
129 STATUS REPORT Joint by all parties. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
130 STATUS REPORT Joint Discovery Plan by all parties. (Sklut, John) Same document as 130 . (CS, Case Administrator). (Entered: 05/21/2007)
131 NOTICE of Hearing − Text entry; no PDF document. − By Court: Telephonic Scheduling Conference RESET for 6/19/2007 09:00 AM in Telephonic Argument before Judge Fred Van Sickle. (moved from 5/25/07) Counsel may contact chambers if this schedule creates a hardship.(KJH, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
132 RESPONSE to Motion re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Spokane County. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Robert Wrigley# 2 Appendix Wright v. Riveland)(Kaufman, James) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 12 of 23

06/01/2007 06/05/2007 06/18/2007
06/19/2007 06/19/2007
09/13/2007 10/02/2007 10/12/2007
11/01/2007 11/01/2007 11/20/2007 12/04/2007 12/04/2007 12/04/2007
12/05/2007 12/05/2007
12/19/2007

133 Praecipe filed by Spokane County: Re 132 Response to Motion. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
134 REPLY re 132 Response to Motion Re: Partial Summary Judgment by Shawn Huss. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
135 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION re Ct. Rec. 118 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED; and Ct. Rec. 121 Defendant's Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (VJ, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
136 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Fred Van Sickle : Scheduling Conference held on 6/19/2007. (Not Reported) (CP, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
137 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER: A Pretrial Conference is set for 4/15/2008 at 8:30 AM by Telephone Conference before Judge Fred Van Sickle. The parties shall call the court's conference line at 509−372−1234. The Bench Trial is set for 5/5/2008 at 9:00 AM in Spokane before Judge Fred Van Sickle. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (VJ, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
138 SUPPLEMENT re 132 Response to Motion, 133 Praecipe by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Legal Authority)(Kaufman, James) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
139 RESPONSE re 138 Supplement Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Supplemental Authority by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
140 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY granting 27 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and denying 102 Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (SJP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
141 RESPONSE to Motion re 94 MOTION to Certify Class Grant Approval of Notice and Appoint Class Counsel filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 11/01/2007)
142 AFFIDAVIT by Sherry Queen in Opposition re 94 MOTION to Certify Class Grant Approval of Notice and Appoint Class Counsel filed by Spokane County. (Kaufman, James) (Entered: 11/01/2007)
143 REPLY re 141 Response to Motion by Shawn Huss. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
144 Stipulated MOTION to Strike Court Deadlines and Appoint a Judicial Mediator by all parties. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sklut, John) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
145 AFFIDAVIT by Breean L. Beggs in Support re 144 Stipulated MOTION to Strike Court Deadlines and Appoint a Judicial Mediator filed by Shawn Huss. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
146 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 144 Stipulated MOTION to Strike Court Deadlines and Appoint a Judicial Mediator : Motion Hearing set for 1/2/2008 at 06:30 PM for 144 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Sklut, John) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
147 Joint MOTION to Expedite hearing on Stipulated Motion to Appoint a Judicial Mediator and Strike Current Court Deadlines by all parties. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sklut, John) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
148 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 147 Joint MOTION to Expedite hearing on Stipulated Motion to Appoint a Judicial Mediator and Strike Current Court Deadlines : Motion Hearing set for 12/5/2007 at 06:30 PM for 147 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Sklut, John) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
149 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO APPOINT A JUDICIAL MEDIATOR re 144 Motion to Strike, and granting 147 Motion to Expedite. This Court's Scheduling Conference Order, Ct. Rec. 137 , and all deadlines set forth therein are stricken.

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 13 of 23

01/09/2008 03/05/2008
03/13/2008 03/17/2008 04/18/2008 05/13/2008 06/09/2008 06/23/2008 07/03/2008 07/11/2008 08/11/2008
08/25/2008 08/25/2008
08/26/2008 08/26/2008
08/27/2008 09/04/2008

Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (SJP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
150 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffry Keith Finer on behalf of Shawn Huss (Finer, Jeffry) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
151 NOTICE of Hearing − Text entry; no PDF document. − By Court: Telephonic Status Conference set re Ct. Rec. 149 for 3/13/2008 09:30 AM before Judge Fred Van Sickle. The parties shall call the court's conference line at 509−458−6382.(KJH, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 03/05/2008)
152 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Fred Van Sickle: Status Conference held on 3/13/2008. (Not Reported) (CP, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
153 ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE STATUS REPORT. The parties shall file a joint status report on 4/18/2008. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (SJP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
154 STATUS REPORT joint by Shawn Huss, Spokane County. (Sklut, John) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
155 NOTICE by Shawn Huss of Withdrawal of Attorney John D. Sklut (Sklut, John) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
156 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Alexander Patterson on behalf of Spokane County (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
157 ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE STATUS REPORT. Signed by Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (SJP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
158 STATUS REPORT by all parties. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
159 NOTICE by Spokane County of Withdrawal of Frank Conklin (Conklin, Frank) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
160 NOTICE of Hearing − Text entry;no PDF document. − By Court: Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 8/26/2008 11:00 AM by telephone conference call before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. The parties shall call the court's conference line at 509−458−6382. The parties shall file a joint proposed case schedule by noon on 8/25/08.(KJH, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
161 STATUS REPORT Joint Proposed Case Schedule by all parties. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
162 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION granting 94 Motion to Certify Class. This action shall proceed as a class action on behalf of a class consisting of all individuals, from May 5, 2004 to December 20, 2006, who were deprived of their property pursuant to booking fee policy of the Spokane County Jail without being provided the constitutionally guaranteed due process of law. Shawn Huss shall serve as the class representative. Attorneys for the Center for Justice shall serve as counsel for the class. Signed by Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (SJP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
163 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle: Scheduling Conference held on 8/26/2008. (Not Reported) (CP, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 08/26/2008)
164 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: A Telephonic Pretrial Conference is set for 3/17/2009 at 08:30 AM by Telephonic Argument before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. The parties shall call the court's conference line at 509−458−6382. Bench Trial is set for 4/6/2009 at 09:00 AM in Spokane before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. Signed by Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (SJP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/26/2008)
165 Praecipe filed by Spokane County: Re 161 Status Report. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
166 MOTION for Reconsideration re 162 Order on Motion to Certify Class,, by Spokane County. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Patterson, Michael)

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 14 of 23

09/04/2008 09/04/2008 09/04/2008 09/05/2008 09/15/2008 09/24/2008 10/10/2008 10/10/2008 10/10/2008 10/22/2008
11/05/2008 12/03/2008 12/08/2008 01/23/2009 01/26/2009

(Entered: 09/04/2008)
167 DECLARATION by Harold J. Brady in Support re 166 MOTION for Reconsideration re 162 Order on Motion to Certify Class,, filed by Spokane County. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
168 DECLARATION by James H. Kaufman in Support re 166 MOTION for Reconsideration re 162 Order on Motion to Certify Class,, filed by Spokane County. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
169 Defendant's NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 166 MOTION for Reconsideration re 162 Order on Motion to Certify Class,, : Motion Hearing set for 10/28/2008 11:00 AM in Spokane before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
170 Praecipe filed by Spokane County: Amended Certificate of Service. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
171 SUPPLEMENT Declaration of James Kaufman by Spokane County. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit −Certificate of Service)(Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
172 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 166 MOTION for Reconsideration re 162 Order on Motion to Certify Class,, : Motion Hearing set for 11/12/2008 01:00 PM in Spokane before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
173 MOTION for Reconsideration re 140 Order on Motion to Strike by Spokane County. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
174 DECLARATION by Michael A. Patterson in Support re 173 MOTION for Reconsideration (Patterson, Michael) Modified on 10/14/2008 (SJP, Case Administrator). (Entered: 10/10/2008)
175 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 173 MOTION for Reconsideration: Motion Hearing set for 12/16/2008 01:30 PM in Spokane before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (Patterson, Michael) Modified on 10/14/2008 (SJP, Case Administrator). (Entered: 10/10/2008)
176 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL, STAYING ACTION, AND VACATING SCHEDULING ORDER Defendant's Second Motion for Reconsideration, Ct. Rec. 173 is DENIED. Defendant's First Motion for Reconsideration, Ct. Rec. 166 is DENIED. Defendant's request for certification of an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 USC 1292(b) is GRANTED. All further proceedings in this matter shall be stayed pending disposition on appeal. The Court's Amended Scheduling Order, Ct. Rec. 164, is VACATED. Signed by Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (SJP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
177 NOTICE of Change of Address by Michael Alexander Patterson (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
178 ORDER re Joint Status Report. Signed by Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (SJP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
179 STATUS REPORT by Spokane County. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
180 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER: Permission to appeal is granted. Petitioner shall perfect appeal within 10 days of this order. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
183 9CCA Appeal Case Number 09−35074 for Ct. Rec. # 182 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed 1/28/09. Text entry; no PDF document attached. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 01/28/2009)

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 15 of 23

01/26/2009
01/28/2009 01/28/2009
01/28/2009 01/28/2009 01/28/2009 02/06/2009 02/17/2009
02/17/2009 03/24/2009 07/28/2009 07/30/2009
08/06/2009
08/11/2009
08/13/2009 08/17/2009

184 9CCA Time Schedule as to Ct. Rec. # 182 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Spokane County. Designation Due: 2/23/09. Transcript Due: 3/25/09. Opening Brief Due: 5/11/09. Appellees Brief Due: 6/9/09. 9CCA: 09−35074. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
181 LODGED NOTICE OF APPEAL by Spokane County. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 09800000000000617540. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
182 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to Ct. Rec. # 140 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Spokane County. (PH, Case Administrator) Modified on 4/10/2012 −− 9CCA #09−35074. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 01/28/2009)
185 9CCA Payment Notification form re Ct. Rec. # 182 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. Received $455, receipt number 09800000000000617540. Copy of docket entries forwarded to 9CCA. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
186 Letter from Appeal Deputy Clerk to Michael A. Patterson dated 1/28/2009. ORIGINAL LETTER AND ENCLOSURES WILL BE MAILED TO ADDRESSEE ONLY. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
187 PROOF OF SERVICE by Spokane County re 181 Lodged Notice of Appeal. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
188 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by Spokane County. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
189 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Record on Appeal by Spokane County re 183 Appeal Case Number. Date Appeal Filed: 1/28/09. Court Reporter: Mark Snover.. 9CCA: 09−35074. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
190 Praecipe filed by Spokane County: Re 189 Transcript Designation of Record on Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Certificate of Service)(Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
191 CERTIFICATE OF RECORD re Ct. Rec. # 182 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Spokane County. 9CCA Case Number: 09−35074. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/24/2009)
192 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Spokane County. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
193 NOTICE of Hearing − Text entry; no PDF document. − By Court: Status Conference set for 8/11/2009 10:00 AM in by telephone conference call before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. The parties shall call the court's conference line at 509−458−6382.(KJH, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 07/30/2009)
194 NOTICE of Hearing − Text entry;no PDF document. − By Court: Telephonic Status Conference RESET for 8/13/2009 10:00 AM before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (moved from 8/10). The parties shall call the court's conference line at 509−458−6382.(CP, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
195 NOTICE of Hearing − Text entry;no PDF document. − By Court: Telephonic Status Conference RESET for 8/13/2009 03:45 PM before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (moved from 10:00 AM). The parties shall call the court's conference line at 509−458−6382.(CP, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 08/11/2009)
196 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle: Status Conference held on 8/13/2009. (Not Reported) (CP, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
197 TEXT ORDER Setting Hearing on joint motion for approval: No pdf. Counsel shall file their joint motion for approval not later than end of business on 8/31/09. A telephone conference call is SET 9/14/09 @ 1:00 p.m. Counsel shall contact the Courts conference line at 509−458−6382. A final approval hearing will be scheduled at the time of the conference call to be held in open court. Signed by Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (KJH, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 16 of 23

08/31/2009
08/31/2009 09/02/2009 09/04/2009 09/04/2009 09/04/2009 09/11/2009
09/14/2009
09/16/2009 09/18/2009 10/13/2009 11/19/2009 12/09/2009

198 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement by all parties. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Notice of Hearing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Patterson, Michael) Modified on 8/31/2009 −− Attachment (1) is not a Civil Cover Sheet − it's a Notice of Hearing which the attorney will refile using event 'Notice of Hearing on Motion'. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/31/2009)
199 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 198 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement : Motion Hearing set for 8/31/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
200 TEXT ORDER (no pdf) granting 198 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Settlement documents may be filed on or before September 4, 2009.. Signed by Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (KJH, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
201 Joint MOTION for Settlement (Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action) and Form and Manner of Notice by all parties. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
202 MEMORANDUM in Support re 201 Joint MOTION for Settlement (Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action) and Form and Manner of Notice filed by all parties. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
203 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 201 Joint MOTION for Settlement (Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action) and Form and Manner of Notice : Motion Hearing set for 9/14/2009 01:00 PM in Telephonic Argument before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
204 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion − By Court − Text entry;no PDF document. Oral Argument Requested re 201 Joint MOTION for Settlement(Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action) and Form and Manner of Notice : Telephonic Motion Hearing RESET for 9/14/2009 01:30 PM before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (MOVED FROM 1:00 pm). Counsel to contact the Court's conference line 509−458−5250.(CP, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
205 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle: Motion Hearing held on 9/14/2009 re 201 Joint MOTION for Settlement (Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action) and Form and Manner of Notice filed by Shawn Huss, Attorney General for the State of Washington, Spokane County. (Reported by: Mark Snover) (CP, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
206 STIPULATION re 201 Joint MOTION for Settlement (Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action) and Form and Manner of Notice [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE by all parties. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
207 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE; granting 201 Motion for Settlement. Signed by Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
208 Letters from Delles Dale Welles a/k/a Paula Mae Seibolt. Letters forwarded to Plaintiff's counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Envelopes) (RF, Case Administrator) Modified on 3/2/2010 (PL, Case Administrator). (Entered: 10/14/2009)
209 Letter from Chris Ramirez received 11/18/09; copy of Mr. Ramirez's letter and a copy of USDC letter to Spokane County District Court dated 11/19/09 were forwarded to the Center for Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Ltr from USDC to Spokane County District Court) (LE, Case Administrator) Modified on 3/2/2010 (PL, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/19/2009)
210 Objection. Letter from Jamie T. Lair; Forwarded to pltfs' attorney. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (LE, Case Administrator) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/9/2009: # 2 Main Document to remove filing stamp) (LE, Case Administrator).

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 17 of 23

12/14/2009 12/16/2009 02/25/2010 03/01/2010 03/01/2010 03/01/2010 03/01/2010
03/01/2010 03/02/2010 03/02/2010 03/02/2010 03/03/2010 03/04/2010

Modified on 12/9/2009 (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 3/2/2010 (PL, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/09/2009)
211 Objection from Roger Hotrum. Forwarded to Plaintiff's counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Letter from Roger Hotrum) (RF, Case Administrator) Modified on 3/2/2010 (PL, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/14/2009)
212 Objections to Proposed Settlement from Shappa Baker. Forwarded to Plaintiff's counsel. (SAP, Case Administrator) Modified on 3/2/2010 (PL, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/16/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Fairness In Court Hearing set for 3/16/2010 01:00 PM in Spokane before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (per Order Ct. Rec. 207 ) (VR, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
213 Joint MOTION for Settlement /Joint Motion For Final Approval Of Proposed Class Action Settlement by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
214 MEMORANDUM in Support re 213 Joint MOTION for Settlement /Joint Motion For Final Approval Of Proposed Class Action Settlement / Memorandum In Support Of Joint Motion For Final Approval Of Proposed Class Action Settlement, Incentive Awards And Attorneys' Fees And Costs filed by All Parties. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
215 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages /Joint Motion For Excess Pages by All Parties. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
216 DECLARATION by Michael A. Patterson in Support re 213 Joint MOTION for Settlement /Joint Motion For Final Approval Of Proposed Class Action Settlement /Declaration Of Michael A. Patterson In Support Of Joint Motion For Final Approval Of Proposed Class Action Settlement, Incentive Awards And Attorneys' Fees And Costs filed by Spokane County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A pg 6−28, # 2 Exhibit B pg 29−35, # 3 Exhibit C pg 36−38, # 4 Exhibit D pg 39−40, # 5 Exhibit E pg 41−42, # 6 Exhibit F pg 43−44, # 7 Exhibit G pg 45−47, # 8 Exhibit H pg 48−50, # 9 Exhibit I pg 51−52)(Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
217 DECLARATION by Jennifer M. Keough in Support re 213 Joint MOTION for Settlement /Joint Motion For Final Approval Of Proposed Class Action Settlement /Declaration Of Jennifer M. Keough Regarding Notice Dissemination filed by Spokane County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A pg 7−15)(Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
218 DECLARATION by Shawn Huss in Support re 215 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages /Joint Motion For Excess Pages, 213 Joint MOTION for Settlement /Joint Motion For Final Approval Of Proposed Class Action Settlement filed by Shawn Huss. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
219 DECLARATION by Breean Beggs in Support re 215 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages /Joint Motion For Excess Pages, 213 Joint MOTION for Settlement /Joint Motion For Final Approval Of Proposed Class Action Settlement filed by Shawn Huss. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
220 TEXT NOTICE (no pdf) Court Records 208, 209, 210, 211, 212 were received by the Court, docketed, and then forwarded to counsel for plaintiff. These documents were inadvertently sealed. The documents are no longer sealed and may be viewed electronically.. Signed by Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (KJH, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
221 TEXT ORDER (no pdf) granting 215 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (KJH, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
222 MEMORANDUM re 214 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 213 Joint MOTION for Settlement /Joint Motion For Final Approval Of Proposed Class Action Settlement / Supplemental Memorandum In Support Of Joint Motion For Approval Of Proposed Class Action Settlement by All Parties. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered:

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 18 of 23

03/16/2010 03/16/2010 03/19/2010 03/24/2010
03/25/2010 03/25/2010 03/25/2010
03/25/2010 03/25/2010 03/26/2010 03/26/2010
03/26/2010 03/26/2010
03/26/2010 04/01/2010
04/05/2010

03/04/2010)
223 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle: Settlement Conference held on 3/16/2010. (Reported by: Mark Snover) (BA, ) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
224 Objections to Proposed Settlement by Shappa Baker. (PL, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
225 ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL, granting 213 Motion for Settlement. Signed by Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (PL, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
226 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND NOTICE OF APPEAL from District Court decision as to Ct. Rec. # 225 ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL by Shappa Baker. cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (PH, Case Administrator) Modified on 3/26/2010 9CCA No. 10−35290 (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 03/25/2010)
227 9CCA Payment Notification form re Ct. Rec. # 226 Notice of Appeal. Fee Not Paid. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
228 Letter from Appeal Deputy Clerk to Shappa Baker dated 3/25/10. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
229 NOTICE OF APPEAL from District Court decision as to Ct. Rec. # 225 ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL by Roger Michael Hotrum. cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Affidavit in Support of Notice of Intent To Appeal, # 3 Declaration of Service by Mail)(PH, Case Administrator) Modified on 3/26/2010 9CCA No. 10−35291. (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 03/25/2010)
230 9CCA Payment Notification form re Ct. Rec. # 229 Notice of Appeal. Fee Not Paid. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
231 Letter from Appeal Deputy Clerk to Roger Michael Hotrum dated 3/25/2010. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
232 9CCA Appeal Case Number 10−35290 for Ct. Rec. # 226 Notice of Appeal filed 3/24/10. Text entry; no PDF document attached. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
233 9CCA Appeal Case Number: 10−35290 for Ct. Rec. # 226 Notice of Appeal, filed by Shappa Baker. Designation Due: 4/23/10. Transcript Due: 5/24/10. Opening Brief Due: 7/2/10. Appellees Brief Due: 8/2/10. cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
234 9CCA Appeal Case Number 10−35291 for Ct. Rec. # 229 Notice of Appeal filed 3/25/10. Text entry; no PDF document attached. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
235 9CCA Appeal Case Number: 10−35291 for Ct. Rec. # 229 Notice of Appeal, filed by Roger Michael Hotrum. Designation Due: 4/26/10. Transcript Due: 5/24/10. Opening Brief Due: 7/06/10. Appellees Brief Due: 08/05/10. cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
236 Letter from Jamie T. Lair to Clerk of the Court dated 03/23/10. (PL, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
237 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to Ct. Rec. # 229 Notice of Appeal, filed by Roger Michael Hotrum. 9CCA: 10−35291. Appellant to pay $455 filing fee or motion to proceed IPF in 9CCA within 21 days. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/01/2010)
238 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL from District Court decision as to Ct. Rec. # 225 ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL by David Joseph Brault. cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (PH, Case Administrator) Modified on 4/6/2010 9CCA No. #10−35331. (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/06/2010)

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 19 of 23

04/06/2010 04/06/2010 04/06/2010 04/06/2010
04/06/2010
04/06/2010 04/06/2010 04/07/2010 04/07/2010 04/07/2010 04/07/2010
04/07/2010
04/08/2010 04/08/2010 04/08/2010
04/09/2010
04/09/2010

239 9CCA Payment Notification form re Ct. Rec. # 238 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal. Fee Not Paid. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
240 Letter from Appeal Deputy Clerk to David Joseph Brault, #739351 dated 4/06/2010. Original letter and enclosures mailed to addressee only. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
241 9CCA Appeal Case Number 10−35331 for Ct. Rec. # 238 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal filed 4/05/10. Text entry; no PDF document attached. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
242 9CCA Appeal Case Number: 10−35331 for Ct. Rec. # 238 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal, filed by David Joseph Brault. Designation Due: 5/5/10. Transcript Due: 6/4/10. Opening Brief Due: 7/14/10. Appellees Brief Due: 8/13/10. cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
243 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL from District Court decision as to Ct. Rec. # 225 ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL by Jeremy M Williams cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (PH, Case Administrator) Modified on 4/7/2010 9CCA NO. 10−35334. (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/07/2010)
246 Letter from Shappa Baker to James R. Larsen and Molly C. Dwyer dated 4/2/2010. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
247 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE MOTIONS TO: STAY APPEAL AND REMAND; CONSOLIDATE PARTIES; VACATE VOID ORDER; AND, STAY EXECUTION by Shappa Baker. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
244 9CCA Payment Notification form re Ct. Rec. # 243 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal. Fee Not Paid. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
245 Letter from Appeal Deputy Clerk to Jeremy Williams dated 4/07/2010. Original and enclosures mailed to addressee only. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
248 9CCA Appeal Case Number 10−35334 for Ct. Rec. # 243 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal filed 4/6/2010. Text entry; no PDF document attached. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
249 9CCA Appeal Case Number: 10−35334 for Ct. Rec. # 243 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal filed by Jeremy M Williams. Designation Due: 5/06/10. Transcript Due: 6/07/10. Opening Brief Due: 7/15/10. Appellees Brief Due: 8/16/10. cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
250 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL from District Court decision as to Ct. Rec. # 225 ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL by Robert McDonnell cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (PH, Case Administrator) Modified on 4/12/2010 9CCA NO. 10−35339. (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/08/2010)
251 9CCA Payment Notification form re Ct. Rec. # 250 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal. Fee Not Paid. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
252 Letter from Appeal Deputy Clerk to Robert McDonnell dated 4/08/2010. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
254 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL from District Court decision as to 225 ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL by John Lipinski cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (PH, Case Administrator) Modified on 4/13/2010 9CCA NO. 10−35346. (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/12/2010)
253 9CCA Appeal Case Number: 10−35339 for 250 Notice of Appeal filed by Robert McDonnell. Designation Due: 5/7/10. Transcript Due: 6/7/10. Opening Brief Due: 7/16/10. Appellees Brief Due: 8/16/10. cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (RF, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/10/2010)
257 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL from District Court decision as to Ct. Rec. # 225 ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL by Michael W.

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 20 of 23

04/12/2010 04/12/2010 04/12/2010 04/12/2010 04/12/2010
04/12/2010
04/13/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010
04/13/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010

Baker cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (PH, Case Administrator) Modified on 4/13/2010 9CCA NO. 10−35347. (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/12/2010)
255 9CCA Payment Notification form re Ct. Rec. # 254 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal. Fee Not Paid. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
256 Letter from Appeal Deputy Clerk to John Lipinski dated 4/12/2010. Original letter and enclosures mailed to address only. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
258 9CCA Payment Notification form re Ct. Rec. # 257 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal. Fee Not Paid. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
259 Letter from Appeal Deputy Clerk to Michael W. Baker dated 4/12/2010. Original letter and enclosures mailed to addressee only. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
261 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL from District Court decision as to Ct. Rec. # 225 ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL by Robin Anthony Rittermann. cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (PH, Case Administrator) Modified on 4/13/2010 9CCA NO. 10−35353. (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/13/2010)
265 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL and Request to Proceed IFP from District Court decision as to Ct. Rec. # 225 ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL by John Burton cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support of Request to Proceed IFP)(PH, Case Administrator) Modified on 4/13/2010 9CCA NO. 10−35354. (PH, Case Administrator). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/19/2010: # 2 Signature Page of Notice of Appeal) (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/13/2010)
260 9CCA Appeal Case Number: 10−35347 for Ct. Rec. # 257 Letter contrued as a Notice of Appeal filed by Michael W. Baker. Designation Due: 5/10/10. Transcript Due: 6/8/10. Opening Brief Due: 7/19/10. Appellees Brief Due: 8/18/10. cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
262 9CCA Payment Notification form re Ct. Rec. # 261 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal. Fee Not Paid. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
263 Letter from Appeal Deputy Clerk to Robin Rittermann dated 4/13/2010. Original letter and enclosures mailed to addressee only. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
264 9CCA Appeal Case Number: 10−35353 for Ct. Rec. # 261 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal filed by Robin Anthony Rittermann. Designation Due: 5/12/10. Transcript Due: 6/11/10. Opening Brief Due: 7/21/10. Appellees Brief Due: 8/20/10. cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
266 9CCA Payment Notification form re Ct. Rec. # 265 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal and Request to Proceed IFP. Fee Not Paid. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
267 Letter from Appeal Deputy Clerk to John Burton dated 4/13/2010. Original letter and enclosures mailed to addressee only. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
268 9CCA Appeal Case Number: 10−35346 for Ct. Rec. # 254 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal filed by John Lipinski. Designation Due: 5/10/10. Transcript Due: 6/7/10. Opening Brief Due: 7/19/10. Appellees Brief Due: 8/18/10. cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
269 9CCA Appeal Case Number: 10−35354 for Ct. Rec. # 265 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL and Request to Proceed IFP, filed by John Burton. Designation Due: 5/12/10. Transcript Due: 6/11/10. Opening Brief Due: 7/21/10. Appellees Brief Due: 8/20/10. cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/13/2010)

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 21 of 23

04/15/2010 04/15/2010 04/16/2010 04/19/2010 04/19/2010 04/19/2010 04/19/2010 04/23/2010 04/23/2010 04/27/2010 04/27/2010 05/03/2010 05/03/2010 05/03/2010 05/21/2010
06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010

270 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to Ct. Rec. # 238 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal, filed by David Joseph Brault 9CCA: 10−35331. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
271 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to Ct. Rec. # 250 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal, filed by Robert McDonnell 9CCA: 10−35339. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
272 Docket Annotation: Ct. Rec. # 265 Notice of Appeal signed copy received from Appellant − John Burton. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
273 Letter from John Lipinski to Clerk of the Court dated 4/14/10 requesting to dismiss his appeal. Copy of letter forwarded to 9CCA, re 9CCA No. 10−35346. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
274 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to Ct. Rec. # 226 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND NOTICE OF APPEAL, filed by Shappa Baker 9CCA: 10−35290. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
275 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to Ct. Rec. # 257 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL, filed by Michael W. Baker 9CCA: 10−35347. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
276 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to Ct. Rec. # 243 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL, filed by Jeremy M Williams 9CCA: 10−35334. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
277 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Record on Appeal by John Burton re Ct. Rec. # 265 Notice of Appeal. Date Appeal Filed: 4/12/10. Court Reporter: Mark Snover. 9CCA: 10−35354. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
278 Letter construed as a MOTION For Transcription at Government Expense by John Burton. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
279 MANDATE from 9CCA as to Ct. Record # 254 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal, filed by John Lipinski. This appeal is Dismissed. 9CCA: 10−35346. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/27/2010)
280 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to Ct. Rec. # 261 Letter construed as a Notice of Appeal filed by Robin Anthony Rittermann. 9CCA: 10−35353. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/27/2010)
281 Letter from Robert McDonnell to Appeal Deputy Clerk dated 4/27/2010. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
282 Letter from Appeal Deputy Clerk to Robert McDonnell dated 5/3/2010. Original letter and 9CCA Order Ct. Rec. # 271 mailed to Mr. McDonnell. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
283 ORDER DENYING MR. BURTON'S MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS AT GOVERNMENT'S EXPENSE denying Ct. Rec. # 278 . Signed by Senior Judge Fred Van Sickle. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
284 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to Ct. Rec. # 226 Notice of Appeal, filed by Shappa Baker, and Ct. Rec. # 229 Notice of Appeal, filed by Roger Michael Hotrum 9CCA: 10−35290 &10−35291 are consolidated. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
285 MANDATE from 9CCA as to Ct. Rec. # 238 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL, filed by David Joseph Brault. This appeal is Dismissed. 9CCA: 10−35331. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
286 MANDATE from 9CCA as to Ct. Rec. # 261 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL, filed by Robin Anthony Rittermann. This appeal is Dismissed. 9CCA: 10−35353. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
287 MANDATE from 9CCA as to Ct. Rec. # 243 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL, filed by Jeremy M Williams. This appeal is Dismissed. 9CCA: 10−35334. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/14/2010)

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 22 of 23

06/29/2010 07/06/2010 07/08/2010 07/12/2010 07/29/2010 08/16/2010 08/26/2010 08/27/2010
09/15/2010

288 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Plaintiff Shawn Huss. Attorney Jeffry K. Finer is withdrawing. Breean Lawrence Beggs is substituted as counsel for Plaintiff. (Beggs, Breean) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
289 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to 250 Notice of Appeal filed by Robert McDonnell, 9CCA: 10−35339. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
290 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to 226 Notice of Appeal filed by Shappa Baker, 9CCA: 10−35290. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
291 MANDATE from 9CCA as to Ct. Rec. # 257 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL filed by Michael W. Baker. This appeal is Dismissed. 9CCA: 10−35347. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
292 MANDATE from 9CCA as to Ct. Rec. # 229 Notice of Appeal, filed by Roger Michael Hotrum. This appeal is Dismissed. 9CCA: 10−35291. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
293 MANDATE from 9CCA as to Ct. Rec. # 250 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL from District Court decision as to Ct. Rec. # 225 ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL, filed by Robert McDonnell. This appeal is Dismissed. 9CCA: 10−35339. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
294 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to Ct. Rec. # 265 Letter construed as a NOTICE OF APPEAL and Request to Proceed IFP from District Court decision, filed by John Burton 9CCA: 10−35354. This appeal is DISMISSED. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
295 9CCA Appeal Case Number: 10−35290 for Ct. Rec. # 226 Notice of Appeal, filed by Shappa Baker. Transcript Due: 9/27/2010. Opening Brief Due: 11/08/2010. Appellees Brief Due: 12/08/10. cc: Court Reporter: Mark Snover. Production of transcript for 3/16/2010 proceeding is authorized at public expense. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
296 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Settlement Conference. Proceedings held on 03/16/10 in Spokane, Washington before Judge Van Sickle. Page Numbers: 1−12

Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.

To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Mark Snover by telephone at 509−458−3434

09/17/2010 12/01/2010 04/09/2012

. Redaction Request due 10/6/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/18/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/14/2010. (PL, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/15/2010)
297 MANDATE from 9CCA as to 265 Notice of Appeal, filed by John Burton. Appeal dismissed per Judgment entered on 8/26/10 granting appellee's motion to dismiss. 9CCA: 10−35354. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
298 MANDATE from 9CCA as to 226 Notice of Appeal, filed by Shappa Baker. granting Appellant's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. 9CCA: 10−35290. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
299 MANDATE − Pursuant to the court's Decmeber 20, 2010, order, this appeal is deemed dismissed voluntarily. 9CCA: 09−35074. (CS, Case Administrator)

Case: 2:05-cv-180 As of: 08/02/2013 10:32 AM PDT 23 of 23 Modified on 4/9/2012 (CS, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/09/2012)