3:08-cv-05501 | W.D. Wash. | Jan 14, 2009
HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA LYNN ANN HUST, Case No. C08-5501RBL Plaintiff, v. ORDER REQUESTING LIMITED RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THE STATE OF WYOMING; et al, Defendants. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. # 97] of the Court’s Order [Dkt. #96] Granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss without prejudice. The Court has reviewed and considered the Motion. Under Local Rule 7(e)(3), the Court Requests that the Defendants submit a Response to the Motion, limited to the issue below.
Plaintiff argues that under Wallace v. Kato , 549 U.S. 384" date_filed="2007-02-21" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Wallace v. Kato">549 U.S. 384 (2007), her §1983 claim for false arrest [1] in violation of the Fourth Amendment (and associated “civil conspiracy” claims arising from her arrests) has accrued and is viable, notwithstanding Heck v. Humphries , 512 U.S. 477" date_filed="1994-06-24" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Heck v. Humphrey">512 U.S. 477 (1994). The State of Washington Defendants sought dismissal of this claim under Heck [ See Dkt. #88 at p. 6] and the Clark County defendants relied on that portion of the State’s Motion in seeking dismissal of that claim against them [ See Dkt. #93 at p.3]. The Defendants’ Motions did not cite or distinguish Wallace v. Kato .
Plaintiff’s Response [Dkt. #86] to the Laramie Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #50] cited Heck for an unrelated proposition, and did not cite Wallace . Plaintiff did not Respond to the subsequent Dispositive Motions [Dkt. #s 88, 90, and 92], which were noted prior to the date of the Court’s Order. (The Clark County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #93] was not noted until January 23, 2009)
The Plaintiff’s §1983 false arrest (and associated “civil conspiracy”) claims as against all Defendants were dismissed on the authority of Heck . The Court seeks a Response from the Defendants on the applicability of Heck to a false arrest claims (and associated “civil conspiracy” claims), in light of the newly-cited authority, Wallace v. Kato . The Defendants’ Response may also include a brief argument as to other bases for dismissal of the false arrest (and associated “civil conspiracy”) claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 14 th day of January, 2009.
A
RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER
Page - 2
NOTES
[1] Plaintiff argues that this authority also supports as “against all defendants” her claims for abuse of 27 process and malicious prosecution. [ See Dkt. #97 at p.3, paragraph 4] The court does not agree, and will not on the authority of Wallace revisit the dismissal of those claims. Plaintiff’s new Wallace argument applies, if 28 at all, only to the false arrest and related claims, not to the abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims. ORDER Page - 1