Mahoney v. Holder
62 F. Supp. 3d 1215
W.D. Wash.2014Background
- Plaintiffs are Seattle Police Department officers who sued under § 1983 and Bivens to challenge a new Use of Force Policy adopted under a DOJ settlement and consent decree addressing alleged SPD patterns of excessive force.
- The Use of Force Policy was developed as part of settlement implementation; a court-appointed Monitor, Merrick Bobb, played a central role in overseeing and submitting the Policy to the court.
- Plaintiffs claim the Policy unduly constrains officers’ ability to defend themselves and that the drafting process (including Bobb’s conduct) violated their constitutional rights; they seek declaratory, injunctive relief and damages.
- Defendants: Merrick Bobb (Monitor) moved to dismiss based on quasi-judicial immunity; City of Seattle, Mayor, and City Attorney moved to dismiss for failure to state claims under the Second and Fourth Amendments, Equal Protection, and Due Process.
- The court treated allegations about the Monitor’s conduct as true for the motion but found his actions fell within a judicial function involving discretion; the court dismissed all claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quasi-judicial immunity for Monitor Bobb | Bobb exceeded his role, seized control of drafting and refused officer input, so he lacks immunity | Bobb was a court-appointed Monitor performing a judicial function with discretion and is therefore immune | Court: Bobb entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity; claims against him dismissed |
| Second Amendment | Policy burdens officers’ right to self-defense and therefore impinges Second Amendment rights | Second Amendment protects possession/use generally but not a right to use weapons in any particular manner; employer regulation of use is outside Second Amendment scope | Court: Policy does not burden conduct protected by Second Amendment; claim fails |
| Fourth Amendment | Policy constitutes a figurative "seizure" or flips citizen protections into officer rights to use force | Fourth Amendment seizure requires physical force/show of authority restraining movement; balancing tests for citizen claims cannot be recast as officer positive rights | Court: No Fourth Amendment seizure or cognizable officer right; claim fails |
| Equal Protection & Due Process (substantive & procedural) | Policy discriminates and deprives officers of fundamental rights (self-defense); process for policy adoption was inadequate | Plaintiffs identify no similarly situated comparator for equal protection; substantive due process not a separate basis where other constitutional provisions govern; policy adoption did not violate procedural due process | Court: Plaintiffs fail to state Equal Protection, substantive due process (not conscience-shocking), or procedural due process claims; all fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard and two-step motion-to-dismiss analysis)
- Burton v. Infinity Capital Mgmt., 753 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2014) (quasi-judicial immunity extends to nonjudicial officers performing judicial functions)
- Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, 508 U.S. 429 (1993) (proponent of absolute immunity bears burden to justify it)
- Atkinson-Baker & Assocs., Inc. v. Kolts, 7 F.3d 1452 (9th Cir. 1993) (quasi-judicial immunity for special masters)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (judicial notice of documents outside complaint in certain circumstances)
- Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2007) (judicial notice of related court proceedings)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual possession but is not unlimited)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment incorporation principles)
- Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014) (discussion of permissible regulation of manner of bearing arms)
- United States v. Morsette, 622 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (possession cases do not address use of weapons)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness standard governing excessive-force claims)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (definition of Fourth Amendment seizure)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (equal protection requires similarly situated comparators)
- Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992) (substantive due process does not guarantee safe workplace)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (substantive due process requires conduct that "shocks the conscience")