United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
J. Pechman United States District Judge
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Port of Seattle
Police Officers A. Ignatov and T. Haggin's Motion for
Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 11.) Plaintiff has not filed a
response. Having considered the Motion and related papers,
the Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Ibrahim Arrahim brings this civil rights action against the
Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”),
Transportation Security Manager Peter K. Cho, and Port of
Seattle Police Officers A. Ignatov and T. Haggin.
(See Dkt. Nos. 3, 6.) Plaintiff claims that while
traveling from the Seattle Tacoma International Airport to
Washington, D.C. in September 2016, he was subjected to an
unconstitutional search and detained for over thirty minutes.
(Dkt. No. 3-1 at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff claims:
I entered into the screening area of the Seattle airport.
After being screened by the X-ray machine I was ask to be pat
down which I fully cooperated with the officers. Next, I was
ask to have my luggage physically search and I cooperated. I
was asked again to have my hands to be tested and cooperated.
I mentioned to the TSA Officers that I have a medical
condition and to be asked to remove and lift articles of
clothing to reveal sensitive body areas. It is a total
violation of my secured and protected rights. I was held in
the secured area of the airport for over thirty (30) minutes
which is a constitutional violation of my rights. My person
was search and touch by TSA Department of Homeland Security
personnel Officer Tran. Police Officer A. Ignatov (#350) and
Police Officer T. Haggin (3118) accused [me] of having fake
Id. I was patted down (5) five times and luggages
was search (4) times. My hands was also tested numerous
(Id. at 7.) Plaintiff does not allege that Officers
Ignatov or Haggin searched or detained Plaintiff or his
property. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts claims for
violations of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 28 U.S.C.
§ 2672. (Dkt. No. 3 at 3.)
I. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is proper where “the movant shows that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden
of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
(1986). To rebut a motion for summary judgment, the
non-movant must point to facts supported by the record which
demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Lujan v.
National Wildlife Foundation, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990).
Conclusory, non-specific statements are not sufficient and
“missing facts” will not be presumed.
Id. at 889.
Port of Seattle Police Officers' Liability
Officers Ignatov and Haggin contend that Plaintiff has failed
to offer any evidence that they violated his constitutional
rights or encouraged others to do so. (Dkt. No. 11 at 2.) To
the contrary, they claim they “did nothing more than
standby while TSA completed its statutory duties.”
(Id. at 4.) A case report generated by Officer
Ignatov following the incident notes:
On September 10, 2016 . . . I was dispatched to the secondary
screening area at check point two (at Seattle Tacoma
International Airport) for an uncooperative passenger.
Dispatch advised that a passenger did not want to allow TSA
to perform a secondary screening after they located a
suspicious item around his groin area.
After I arrived on the scene, I spoke to the passenger . . .
who advised me that the item around his groin area was a
medical devise for his hernia.
Arrahim eventually agreed to TSA's secondary screening
and was cleared by TSA. Arrahim was allowed to ...