521 F.Supp.3d 1040
W.D. Wash.2021Background
- Plaintiff Harborview Fellowship, a nondenominational church in Pierce County, WA, sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Washington Constitution challenging portions of Washington’s Safe Start reopening guidance for religious organizations (capacity caps and mask/speaker rules).
- The case was filed June 1, 2020; a Second Amended Complaint was filed Aug. 21, 2020 adding local defendants; several administrative guidance changes followed (including making a 200-person indoor cap advisory and modifying speaker-mask rules).
- The Department of Health sent a courtesy email and offered technical assistance after receiving complaints; the DOH states it focuses on voluntary compliance and does not generally refer houses of worship for enforcement.
- Defendants (Governor Inslee, Secretary of Health, and AG Ferguson) moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), mounting both facial and factual jurisdictional attacks (court may consider evidence outside the complaint under Safe Air).
- Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages; defendants argued mootness of rescinded hard caps, lack of standing for pre-enforcement claims, and Eleventh Amendment immunity.
- Court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed claims against the state officials without prejudice for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction: hard attendance-cap claims moot; plaintiff lacked a genuine threat of enforcement so pre‑enforcement standing failed; Eleventh Amendment not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of hard indoor attendance cap | The 200-person hard cap continues to injure plaintiff; changes are transient | The hard cap was made advisory/removed; challenge is therefore moot unless reenactment likely | Cap‑based claims are moot—plaintiff failed to show reasonable expectation of reenactment; dismissed |
| Standing / pre-enforcement threat | Church will continue mask/speaker practices and faces imminent enforcement/prosecution | No specific threats or prosecutions; DOH limited to technical assistance; no history of enforcement against houses of worship in WA | No Article III standing for pre‑enforcement claims; plaintiff failed Thomas factors (no specific threat, no enforcement history); dismissed |
| Consideration of extrinsic evidence on jurisdiction | Plaintiff objects to factual challenges to complaint | Defendants may present evidence in a factual Rule 12(b)(1) attack; court need not presume complaint allegations | Court considered extrinsic evidence per Safe Air and resolved factual jurisdictional disputes against plaintiff |
| Eleventh Amendment immunity | Plaintiff contends immunity doesn't bar §1983 claims against officials in their official capacities | Defendants raised Eleventh Amendment as alternative ground | Court did not reach Eleventh Amendment because lack of jurisdiction was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) (district court may consider evidence outside the complaint in a factual Rule 12(b)(1) attack)
- Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000) (three‑factor test for pre‑enforcement standing/threat of prosecution)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
- Bd. of Trustees of Glazing Health & Welfare Tr. v. Chambers, 941 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2019) (repeal/amendment of challenged law generally renders case moot absent reasonable expectation of reenactment)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (Supreme Court guidance on limits to restrictions on religious services)
- Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 982 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2020) (Ninth Circuit decision addressing religious‑service restrictions)
- W. Watersheds Project v. Grimm, 921 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2019) (standing elements and redressability principles)