City Of Sumas, V. Ken Mccoy, 81746-9

In January 2018 Kenneth McCoy applied for a City of Sumas business license for “Northern Tier, Inc.” describing activities like engineering, prototype fabrication, and aerospace; the license was approved.
City utility staff noticed a roughly tenfold spike in electricity usage at the business; police observed loud equipment, heat, open windows, and server-like racks; McCoy told an officer he was mining cryptocurrency.
The city planner advised that computer-based storage/processing (cryptocurrency mining) was not an expressly permitted use in the industrial zone and likely required a conditional use permit.
Prosecutor Jim Wright reviewed the police report and issued citations on June 14, 2018: two state-law charges (false statement and obstruction) and two municipal-code charges (operating without license and prohibited use). The state-law charges were dismissed at arraignment; the municipal-code charges were later dismissed without prejudice.
McCoy filed a pro se superior-court suit (March 2020) alleging malicious prosecution and other torts. The City moved to dismiss based on prosecutorial immunity; the court converted the motion to summary judgment, granted dismissal, and McCoy appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the prosecutor’s charging decisions and related advocacy fell within absolute prosecutorial immunity and McCoy failed to produce evidence showing otherwise; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying untimely leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wright is immune for initiating/pursuing charges	McCoy: charging and pursuing false criminal charges caused malicious prosecution and are actionable	City/Wright: charging decisions are classic prosecutorial functions entitled to absolute immunity	Held: Absolute prosecutorial immunity bars these claims
Selective/unconstitutional prosecution claim	McCoy: he was selectively prosecuted for operating a lawful cryptocurrency business	City: prosecutor had legitimate, nonarbitrary basis (business use vs. license description, huge power draw)	Held: No selective prosecution — no discriminatory purpose or similarly situated comparators shown
Precharging conduct: acting as investigator vs. advocate	McCoy: Wright discussed the matter in executive session and sought planner input, acting as investigator/administrator (no immunity)	City: seeking legal/planner input and deciding whether to charge are advocacy functions protected by absolute immunity	Held: Wright’s precharging conduct (seeking planner opinion, evaluating charges) was advocacy and immune; no evidence he functioned as an investigator/witness
Denial of leave to amend complaint	McCoy: motion to amend was timely and should have been allowed	City: amendment was untimely and submitted at hearing; court properly denied as futile/untimely	Held: No abuse of discretion — court properly denied untimely amendment

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (prosecutors absolutely immune for initiating and pursuing criminal prosecutions)
Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (U.S. 1997) (absolute immunity depends on whether act is advocacy or investigative/administrative)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1993) (no absolute immunity for prosecutorial investigative functions)
Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (U.S. 1985) (standards for selective prosecution claims require discriminatory purpose/effect)
Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1962) (selection to prosecute violates equal protection only for unjustifiable classifications)
Tanner v. City of Federal Way, 100 Wn. App. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (prosecutor acting within scope of duties initiating prosecution is absolutely immune)
McCarthy v. County of Clark, 193 Wn. App. 314 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (charging function closely tied to judicial process; immunity preserves prosecutorial independence)
Rodriguez v. Perez, 99 Wn. App. 439 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (absolute immunity covers traditional prosecutorial functions)