FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN J. CRUZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

CITY OF SPOKANE; 

WASHINGTON STATE CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE TRAINING 

COMMISSION, a state commission; 

RICK BOWEN, Commander of the 

Washington State Criminal Justice 

Training Commission Basic Law 

Enforcement Academy; JOHN 

EVERLY, Police Officer at the 

Spokane Police Department and 

Assistant Commander of the 

Washington State Criminal Justice 

Training Commission Basic Law 

Enforcement Academy; ART 

DOLLARD, Police Officer at the 

Spokane Police Department and TAC 

Officer at the Washington State 

Criminal Justice Training Commission 

Basic Law Enforcement Academy; 

JAKE JENSEN, Police Officer at the 

Spokane Police Department and TAC 

No. 21-35912 

D.C. No. 2:20-cv00250-SAB 

ORDER

WITHDRAWING 

CERTIFIED 

QUESTION
2 CRUZ V. CITY OF SPOKANE

Officer at the Washington State 

Criminal Justice Training Commission 

Basic Law Enforcement Academy; 

TODD BELITZ, Police Officer at the 

Spokane Police Department and TAC 

Officer at the Washington State 

Criminal Justice Training Commission 

Basic Law Enforcement Academy; 

SUE RAHR, Executive Director of the 

Washington State Criminal Justice 

Training Commission, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

 and 

FERRY COUNTY; CITY OF 

REPUBLIC, a municipal corporation; 

RAY MAYCUMBER, Ferry County 

Sheriff; AMY ROOKER, Ferry

County Chief Civil Deputy; AUSTIN 

HERSHAW, Police Officer at the 

Black Diamond Police Department; 

PATRICK RAINER, Detective at the 

Ferry County Sheriff's Office, 

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Stanley A. Bastian, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 30, 2023

Submission Withdrawn April 28, 2023
CRUZ V. CITY OF SPOKANE 3 

Resubmitted December 26, 2023 

Seattle, Washington

Filed December 26, 2023 

Before: Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Andrew D. Hurwitz, 

Circuit Judges, and Dean D. Pregerson,* District Judge.

SUMMARY**

Voluntary Dismissal 

The panel granted the parties’ joint stipulated motion to 

voluntarily dismiss the appeal, withdraw a question that the 

panel had certified to the Washington Supreme Court 

relating to the scope of immunity provided by RCW 

43.101.390, and remand to the district court for dismissal of 

all claims against State Appellants.

COUNSEL

Heidi S. Holland (argued), Attorney; Taylor Hennessey, 

Acting Assistant Attorney General, Tort Claims Division; 

Robert W. Ferguson, Washington Attorney General; 

Washington Attorney General’s Office, Spokane, 

* The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for the 

Central District of California, sitting by designation.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has 

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
4 CRUZ V. CITY OF SPOKANE

Washington; Julie A. Turley, Assistant Attorney General, 

Washington Attorney General’s Office, Olympia, 

Washington; for Defendant-Appellant. 

Nathan J. Arnold (argued) and Emanuel F. Jacobowitz, 

Arnold & Jacobowitz PLLC, Redmond, Washington, for 

Plaintiff-Appellee.

ORDER

On April 28, 2023, we certified to the Washington 

Supreme Court a question relating to the proper scope of 

immunity provided by RCW 43.101.390. Dkt. No. 45. The 

Washington Supreme Court accepted the certified question 

on May 1, 2023. Dkt. No. 52. Thereafter, both the 

Washington Supreme Court and our court stayed 

proceedings while the parties engaged in mediation. Dkt. 

Nos. 55, 56. 

On December 14, 2023, the parties filed a joint 

Stipulated Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal, Withdraw 

the Certified Question, and Remand for Dismissal. Dkt. No. 

63. The Motion is hereby GRANTED. 

Therefore, we now withdraw the prior certified question 

to the Washington Supreme Court. The matter is remanded 

for the district court to dismiss all claims against State 

Appellants. The Clerk of Court is ordered to transmit to the 

Washington Supreme Court, under official seal of the Ninth 

Circuit, this order. A copy of this order served on the district 

court shall act as and for the mandate of this court. 

Each side shall bear their own costs. 

It is so ORDERED.