Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/9666767/Order-on-Summary-Judgment-Jamison-v-Morton
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:32:38+00:00

Document:
This is an order we obtained in our client's favor granting our motion for summary judgment and dismissing all significant claims against this police department.
This matter comes before the Court on a motion for summary judgment, docket no.
Plaintiff Nadine Jamison’s motion to strike Defendants’ reply brief as untimely, docket no.
argument of counsel on March 24, 2006, the Court enters the following Order.
5 and driving under the influence. Id. at ¶ 2.2.
14 March 24, 2001, is in dispute. See Answer, docket no. 4.
20 Hall, and Plaintiff decided to drive to a party at Swofford Pond in Mossyrock, Washington.
23 party. Id. (Storm Dep. at 94).
3 testified he consumed either one beer or two beers at the party. Id. (Storm Dep. at 44, 94).
10 beers before arriving at the party and one beer at the party, for a total of two and a half beers.
Ex. B (Jamison Dep. at 100-01).
12 name when they ran into each other. Id. (Storm Dep. at 24-25).
23 English: “After [Officer English] gave him the cigarette, [Officer English] spoke with Mr.
12 Storm Criminal Trial 132).
20 only having two beers?
21 A: It was not consistant [sic].
22 Q: Why do say you that?
3 “not feeling under the influence of alcohol” when he stopped at the Gas Plus Chevron.
14 would “spark [his] concern.” Sullivan Decl., Ex. A (English Dep. at 100).
23 Officer English knew Storm was driving on the evening of the accident. Christie Decl., Ex.
26 50-60 feet away that night was Storm’s. Sullivan Decl., Ex B (Storm Dep. at 132-33).
8 consumed between one and two beers during that period. Id. (Storm Dep. at 85).
12 Plaintiff was removed from the vehicle and both managed to ascend back to the road. Id.
18 Ex P (English Report).
1 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Morton.2 Compl. at ¶¶ 4.1-7.10.
4 declaration” under Kennedy v. Allied Mutual Insurance Company, 952 F.2d 262 (9th Cir.
6 issue of fact by an affidavit contradicting his prior deposition testimony.” Id. at 266.
11 contradiction was actually a ‘sham.’” Id. at 267.
25 this motion for summary judgment. See Compl. at ¶¶ 3.1-3.6.
deposition was taken on December 9, 2005. Christie Decl., Ex. A.
5 testimony. The Court strikes the following statements from the Storm Declaration: (1) “. . .
12 exception of these statements.
15 noting date (February 10, 2006). Docket no. 31. Plaintiff’s motion to strike is DENIED.
16 See LR 7(d)(3) (reply papers should be filed no later than the noting date).
25 defense. Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 952 F.2d 1551, 1558 (9th Cir.
2 to the opposing party. Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000).
18 persons with whom municipal employees came into contact.” Id. at ¶¶ 7.5-7.6.
26 there was no constitutional violation by the City of Morton.
13 section 1983 claim fails as to both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis.
14 1. Did Officer English Deprive Plaintiff of a Constitutional Right?
4 when suspicious circumstances dictated a more active role for them.” Id. at 203.
exception, known as the state-created danger doctrine.
3 conduct” that may be actionable under section 1983.
10 section 1983 could survive summary judgment.
20 following Wood, the plaintiff had stated a claim under the state-created danger doctrine.
2 declined to dismiss the claim on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Id. at 710.
13 than the one they found him in. Id.
2 the police would patrol the neighborhood on the night of the shooting. Id.
12 patrol without doing so).
21 Storm at the wheel.” Id.
4 and after leaving she was in the same position.
13 that he could drink excessively and drive while intoxicated without fear of punishment.” Id.
15 behavior and indicated to Grey that he would not be disciplined for his conduct.” Id.
19 established” as of the time of the incident (August 2001).
8 because it had not been established as of nearly five months later.
22 2. Was the State-Created Danger Doctrine Right Clearly Established?
7 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (citations omitted).
16 an opportunity for Burns to assault Kennedy that would not have otherwise existed.” Id.
8 the section 1983 claim against Officer English is GRANTED.
14 under the analysis discussed above, there is no municipal liability under section 1983.
question of law . . . .
1 128 P.3d 574, 577 (Wash. 2006) (citations omitted).
10 question must create a mandatory duty to take specific action to correct a violation. Smith v.
11 City of Kelso, 112 Wn. App. 277, 282 (2002) (citations omitted).
22 Plaintiff’s negligence claim in turn.
1 are intoxicated (i.e., that Plaintiff is not within the class to be protected by the statute).
8 coordination, or otherwise, exhibits that he or she is under the influence of liquor.” Id.
16 then proceeded to his vehicle, drove away, and eventually collided with the motorcyclist. Id.
violations of RCW 66.44.270). See State v. Roth, 128 P.3d 114, 118 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
statutory violations committed by Brad Storm and observed by Officer English.
24 “duty” element as a matter of law.
11 alleged facts that could satisfy all three elements of the failure to enforce exception if true.
21 for the jury and, as with other facts, may be established by circumstantial evidence. Waite v.
22 Whatcom County, 54 Wn.. App. 682, 686-87 (1994).
16 facts of each case, viewed in a practical, nontechnical manner.” State v. Gillenwater, 96 Wn.
17 App. 667, 671 (1999).
exhibited some level of intoxication during his first encounter with Officer English.
9 Officer English’s personally having witnessed Storm “pull in to get fuel” at the Gas Plus.
13 Officer English would have had probable cause to arrest Storm for a DUI violation.
15 negligence claim against Officer English.
3 judgment is DENIED as to their qualified immunity defense for negligence.
7 requirements and other matters incidental to the exercise of police functions.” Compl. ¶ 52.
14 supervise or control claim against a municipality.
22 and no such duty appears to exist under the exceptions to the public duty doctrine.
24 of Morton is GRANTED.
5 that right has not been clearly established as it relates to the circumstances of this case.
8 Officer English, Plaintiff’s section 1983 claim against the City of Morton also fails.
19 negligence claim against the City of Morton is GRANTED.
23 DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ reply brief as untimely. Docket no. 31.
1 IT IS SO ORDERED.
2 DATED this 29th day of March, 2006.

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.