Thomas Bondurant v. City of Battle Ground, 698 F. App'x 361

Thomas and Michelle Bondurant sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging constitutional and related claims against the City of Battle Ground and the Battle Ground Police Department.
The district court granted summary judgment for the City and the Police Department and denied the Bondurants’ motion to amend their complaint; the Bondurants appealed pro se.
The Bondurants alleged municipal liability based on purported unconstitutional actions by city employees but did not identify an official policy or final policymaker ratification.
The Bondurants sought to amend their complaint after the limitations period; the district court found the proposed amendments time-barred and not to relate back to the original pleading.
The district court concluded the Battle Ground Police Department lacked capacity to be sued under Washington law.
The magistrate-judge’s summary judgment and denial of leave to amend were reviewed de novo on appeal; the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a nonprecedential disposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Municipal liability under § 1983 (Monell)	Bondurants argued the City’s actors deprived them of constitutional rights attributable to municipal policy/custom or ratification	City argued no municipal policy/custom was shown and no final policymaker ratified the conduct	Court held no genuine dispute that municipal liability was established; summary judgment for City affirmed
Capacity to be sued (Battle Ground Police Dept.)	Bondurants treated the Police Department as a suable entity	Defendants argued the Police Department lacks separate legal capacity under Washington law	Court held the Department is not an entity with capacity to be sued; summary judgment for Department affirmed
Motion to amend complaint — statute of limitations/relation back	Bondurants sought leave to amend to add claims/allegations after limitation period	City argued amendments were time‑barred and did not relate back to original complaint	Court held amendment would be futile: claims were time‑barred and did not satisfy relation‑back rules; denial of leave to amend affirmed
Consideration of extra-record documents / appellees’ motion to strike	Bondurants relied on materials not before the district court	Appellees moved to strike extra-record materials on appeal	Court declined to consider documents not filed below and denied appellees’ motion to strike; appellate decision did not rely on extra-record materials

Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir.) (standard of review and § 1983 principles)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S.) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires a policy, custom, or ratification)
Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir.) (municipal liability can be based on ratification by a final policymaker)
Shaw v. Cal. Dep’t of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 788 F.2d 600 (9th Cir.) (state law determines an entity’s capacity to be sued in federal court)
Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758 (9th Cir.) (limitations period for § 1983 claims under Washington law)