Wills v. Pierce County
3:19-cv-05851
| W.D. Wash. | May 18, 2020Background
- Wills was arrested in DuPont, WA on August 21–22, 2016; he alleges mental/physical distress, excessive force by police, and poor conditions and denial of medical care while jailed (suicide-watch, filthy cell, ~37 hours in custody).
- After arrest, Wills pled guilty to Intimidation of a Public Servant; he alleges that a competency/psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Michael Stanfill was erroneous and led to his conviction and coerced plea.
- Wills filed a civil-rights complaint in state court on August 9, 2019; defendants removed the case to federal court on September 11, 2019.
- The Court previously granted summary judgment for Stanfill on claims arising from the competency evaluation; Wills filed an amended complaint on February 28, 2020 naming Pierce County and Stanfill among others.
- Stanfill moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Pierce County moved to dismiss for improper service and failure to state a constitutional claim. Wills failed to respond to Stanfill’s motion.
- The Court: (1) dismissed all claims against Stanfill with prejudice; (2) quashed defective service on Pierce County, dismissed Pierce County without prejudice for failure to state a §1983 Monell claim but granted leave to amend and ordered Wills to perfect service by court-set deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims against Dr. Stanfill should be dismissed | Wills re-alleges claims based on Stanfill’s competency evaluation that led to his plea/conviction | Stanfill points to the Court’s prior grant of summary judgment on the same claims and moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) | Granted: claims against Stanfill dismissed with prejudice (prior summary judgment; Wills did not oppose) |
| Whether service on Pierce County was proper after removal | Wills served a Pierce County official pre-removal but did not follow state-law auditor requirement and did not serve complaint with the summons | Pierce County argues service was defective and was not perfected before removal | Court quashed prior service, allowed Wills to perfect service after removal and set deadlines (service to be made by specified date) |
| Whether Wills stated a §1983 municipal (Monell) claim against Pierce County | Wills alleges a series of events (arrest, jail conditions, evaluation, plea) and seeks damages under civil-rights theories | Pierce County argues Wills fails to plead facts showing a county policy/custom or deliberate action that caused deprivation of federal rights | Granted in part: municipal claims dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege Monell policy/custom causation; Court explained requirements and granted leave to amend |
| Whether leave to amend is appropriate | Wills seeks to proceed against Pierce County and correct pleading/service defects | Pierce County opposes where appropriate; Stanfill argues amendment is futile as to him | Court grants leave to amend as to Pierce County (not Stanfill); amendment allowed because further factual allegations might cure Monell defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under §1983 requires a policy, custom, or practice that is the moving force behind constitutional deprivation)
- Whidbee v. Pierce Cty., 857 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2017) (service of process after removal may be perfected under federal rules despite defective state-court service)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts sufficient to state a plausible claim)
- Gravelet-Blondin v. Shelton, 728 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2013) (municipal defendants are not vicariously liable for employees’ constitutional violations)
- Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015) (12(c) analysis is substantially identical to 12(b)(6) review)
- Direct Mail Specialists v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (actual notice does not substitute for substantial compliance with service rules)
- Umbenhauer v. Woog, 969 F.2d 25 (3d Cir. 1992) (when service is imperfect but can be cured, courts should quash service and allow proper service rather than dismiss)
- Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (leave to amend should be granted unless amendment would be futile)