United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS: LACK OF STANDING
J. Pechman United States District Judge
Court has received and reviewed:
1. City of Seattle's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Standing (Dkt. No. 43) and King County's Joinder (Dkt.
2. Plaintiff's Affidavit re SMC 12A.14.080 for January
2018 (Dkt. No. 47) and Affidavit re RCW 9.41.250 for January
2018 (Dkt. No. 48);
3. City of Seattle's Reply in Support of Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Standing (Dkt. No. 50) and Dan
Satterberg's Consolidated Reply to Plaintiff's
Affidavits and in Support of City of Seattle's Motion to
Dismiss (Dkt. No. 49); all attached declarations and
exhibits; and relevant portions of the record, and rules as
ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of standing; as further
amendment would not cure the complaint's defects, the
dismissal shall be with prejudice.
FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining pending motions in this
matter are all STRICKEN as moot.
the second lawsuit Plaintiff has pursued regarding the issues
before the Court. Plaintiff's first lawsuit consisted of
a facial challenge to the constitutionality of Seattle
Municipal Code (“SMC”) 12A.14.080 and .083 and
RCW 9.41.250, both concerned with restrictions on the
carrying or possession of identified weapons. See
Zaitzeff v. City of Seattle, et al., No.
2:16-CV-00244-BAT, 2016 WL 6084930 at *1-2 (W.D. Wash. Oct.
18. 2016); also Dkt. No. 5, Amended Complaint
(“AC”), ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff's first
lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing
on the ground (among others) that the laws to which Plaintiff
objected had not been enforced against him, thus he could not
plead an actual, imminent or impending injury. Id.
at *5-*6. That result has been upheld on appeal. See
9th Cir. No. 16-35955.
present litigation represents Plaintiff's attempt to
establish standing with amended allegations. AC at ¶ 1.
While the vast majority of his 30 pages of pleadings consist
primarily of Plaintiff's opinions and conclusory legal
statements, it does allege that Plaintiff “desires to
possess and/or carry” any and all of the weapons
restricted by SMC 12A.14.080 and .083 and RCW 9.41.250. AC at
¶ 112. He asserts that he has “new facts”
which alter the analysis regarding his standing to bring this
lawsuit, including allegations that he intended “to
carry his katana and/or a fixed blade knife and/or a spring
assisted opening knife at the U-district Street Fair”
on May 20-21, 2017. AC at ¶ 13. Plaintiff indicates that
he inquired of an SPD officer on February 7, 2017 concerning
these intentions and was advised that he could be
“cited for the illegal use of weapons” should he
appear at the Street Fair carrying those items (and also
asserts that he was similarly advised at the 2016 Street
Fair). AC at ¶¶ 15-20, 24-25.
initial attempt to obtain a preliminary injunction prior to
the 2017 Street Fair was rejected on the grounds that
Plaintiff “ha[d] not shown any serious questions
regarding the merits of his claim” and that “any
injury [he] would face from enforcement of Chapter 12A.14 is
speculative.” (Dkt. No. 21.) A visit to the 2017 Street
Fair (openly carrying a fixed-blade knife) reportedly
resulted in contact from officers of SPD but no arrests or
citations. (See Dkt. No. 34, Kennedy Decl., Ex. A;
an email from Plaintiff entitled “Summary of
has since brought several additional motions, including a
“Motion to Rule That [he] has Standing” (Dkt. No.
27), a motion for leave to amend his complaint again to
allege an August encounter with SPD (Dkt. No. 39), and a
motion for return of his katana (which was seized when he
wore it to a political rally in November 2017; see
Dkt. No. 38) and to further allege financial damages
resulting from the seizure. All of those motions have been
stayed pending a ruling on the present motion. (Dkt. No. 46.)
the parties have recently filed a Stipulated Motion for
Continuance of Dispositive Motions Deadline and ...