United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
SECOND ORDER ON DEFENDANT CITY OF LACEY AND LACEY
POLICE DEPARTMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
J. BRYAN United States District Judge
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant City of Lacey and
Lacey Police Department's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dkt. 39. The Court has considered the motion and the
remainder of the file herein.
narrow issue presented by the motion is whether the City of
Lacey was involved with Plaintiff's negative encounter
with law enforcement on July 4, 2014. Because there has been
no showing that any City of Lacey entity or agent, including
the Lacey Police Department, was involved with the incident,
summary judgment of dismissal should be granted.
The Amended Complaint and named parties.
e-filed her 28 U.S.C. §1983 Complaint on July 5, 2017,
the last day to file the case under the applicable three year
statute of limitations, given the July 4th
holiday. Dkts. 1-2, 1-9. See discussion, Dkt. 24 at
3-6. The Complaint named as defendants Lacey Police
Department and “Chris Packard c/o Lacey Police
Department, ” both with the same mailing address of 420
College St. SE, Lacey, Washington. Dkt. 1-2 at 1.
November 2, 2017, the Court issued an Order finding that
“Lacey Police Department” was not a proper
defendant. Dkt. 24 at 8. The Court gave Plaintiff the
opportunity to file an amended complaint naming the City of
Lacey, not Lacey Police Department, as a defendant.
Id. Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on
November 20, 2017. Dkt. 28. The Amended Complaint names a
defendant, “Lacey Police Department and City of Lacey,
” as one entity (hereinafter, “The City of Lacey
Defendant”). Dkt. 28 at 2. Also named are “Chris
Packard c/o - Officer, ” and “Thurston County a
Political subdivision of the State of WA (Sheriff's
Depart.).” Id. The Amended Complaint alleges
substantially the same set of facts about the July 4, 2014
law enforcement incident. See Dkts. 1-2 and 28.
The City of Lacey Defendant's Motion for Summary
City of Lacey Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment
on December 7, 2017. Dkt. 39. The motion seeks summary
judgment of dismissal on the basis that no City of Lacey
officer or entity was in any way involved in the July 4, 2014
incident. The City of Lacey Defendant substantiated its
motion with the declaration of Joe Upton, Commander with the
Lacey Police Department, who represented under penalty of
perjury that, after a thorough review of all Lacey Police
Department records, “I have determined that no Lacey
Police Department officers were involved in any way with the
July 4, 2014 incident.” Dkt. 40 at 1. A detailed 911
log for a July 4, 2014 police event references Chris Packard
(id. at 3) and Plaintiff (id. at 4), but
not the Lacey Police Department. The City of Lacey Defendant
also referred the Court to a declaration by Chris Packard, a
named defendant, who stated that since 2012 he has been
continuously employed with Thurston County Sherriff's
Office. Dkt. 35 at 1.
January 3, 2018, after the both the Court and the City of
Lacey Defendant warned Plaintiff of the consequences for
failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 39
at 1; Dkt. 43), Plaintiff filed a Response to another pending
motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 44 at 1. Plaintiff filed a
Response to the City of Lacey Defendant's motion for
summary judgment in paper format on January 16, 2018, but the
pleading was not processed by the Clerk's Office until
after the Court had already granted the City of Lacey
Defendant's motion for summary judgment, on January 24,
2018. Dkt. 52.
days later, on January 26, 2018, the Court vacated its Order
and considered the merits of Plaintiff's Response. Dkt.
57 at 1. The Court construed the pleading as a request for
additional time to supplement the record in opposition to the
motion. Id. at 2. The Court gave Plaintiff a
deadline of February 12, 2018, to file supplemental
materials. At Plaintiff's request, the Court extended the
deadline to February 26, 2018. Dkt. 71. The City of Lacey
Defendant has supplemented their showing with a City of Lacey
map and accompanying declaration, to show that the July 4,
2014 incident occurred in unincorporated Thurston County, not
within the City of Lacey. Dkt. 83.
relevant to the issue presented, whether the City of Lacey
was involved with the July 4, 2014 incident, Plaintiff has
stated in prior pleadings, “I am just not that
knowledgeable in all the different departments and ranks of
the law enforcement . . . I also believe that the Lacey
Police Department was in fact present that day [of July 4,
2014].” Dkt. 44 at 6.
Plaintiff's request for an extension of time, Plaintiff
has made multiple filings, all of which the Court has
considered. Plaintiff has not requested more time for
discovery. Plaintiff has not filed any police reports,
affidavits, or other evidence, other than her own