Hall v. County of Whatcom (WCSO), 2:09-cv-01545

Background

On July 30, 2008, James, Kurt, and Mark Hall were in a truck driven by James when Deputy Wright approached them after another driver flashed lights.
Wright was not in uniform and did not indicate he was a deputy when he interacted with the Hall brothers, who approached him with hands in their pockets.
Without warning, Wright struck James Hall in the throat with an open palm and then poked Kurt Hall in the eye during the encounter.
Wright identified himself as an off‑duty deputy amidst the ensuing dispute, creating a disputed factual backdrop for the claims.
Plaintiffs asserted §1983 claims for excessive force and related state tort claims (assault and battery, false arrest/imprisonment, negligence, and IIED); several claims were later abandoned.
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, with only James Hall’s excessive force and assault/battery claims against Wright potentially proceeding to trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Wright’s use of force against James Hall excessive under the Fourth Amendment?	Hall argues Wright used unlawful excessive force.	Wright contends force was reasonable under the circumstances to ensure safety.	Triable issue; reasonable juror could find excessive force.
Did Wright’s contact with Kurt Hall amount to excessive force under the Fourth Amendment?	Kurt claims intentional force (eye poking) breached Fourth Amendment rights.	Force was minimal and within acceptable officer safety limits.	Not excessive; intrusion minimal; rights not violated.
Is Wright entitled to qualified immunity on the Hall claims?	Violation of clearly established rights; no qualified immunity.	If facts support a legitimate defense to the claim, immunity may apply.	Not entitled to qualified immunity for James Hall under the Court’s view of the facts; right clearly established.
Can Whatcom County be liable under Monell for alleged training/supervisory failures?	County’s training/supervision were inadequate, causing the constitutional injury.	No evidence of deliberate indifference; training was not constitutionally deficient.	Monell claim defeated; training failure not shown to be deliberate indifference.
What is the status of the false arrest/other state-law claims against Wright and Whatcom County?	False arrest and related claims survive; other state claims may be viable as separate actions.	Claims abandoned or not supported by evidence.	False arrest/related claims dismissed; remaining state claims not pursued or dismissed; only James Hall’s federal claims survive to trial.

Key Cases Cited

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonableness of force judged from officer’s perspective on scene)
Paratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (color of state law and deprivation requirement for §1983)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (initial burden on movant to show absence of genuine issue of material fact)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard requiring evidence to show genuine issue of material fact)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step approach to qualified immunity analysis)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (decision to modify mandatory sequencing of Saucier test)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal liability for failure to train or supervise requires deliberate indifference)
Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985) (discrete incidents of misconduct insufficient for Monell liability)
Brower v. Ackerley, 88 Wn. App. 87 (1991) (definition and liability aspects of assault and false arrest)