Nelson v. Thurston County ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JOSEPH A. NELSON, CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05184-DGE 11 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER 12 v. 13 THURSTON COUNTY, a Washington municipality, and RODNEY T. DITRICH, 14 an individual, 15 Defendants. 16 17 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, United States District 18 Judge David G. Estudillo: 19 On December 20, 2018, Defendants Rodney Ditrich and Thurston County filed a Motion 20 for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 31.) This motion sought dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims 21 against Thurston County. (Id. at 18.) Defendant John Snaza also filed a Motion for Summary 22 Judgment (Dkt. No. 34), which Defendants Ditrich and Thurston County joined (Dkt. No. 36). 23 On March 21, 2019, Judge Ronald B. Leighton denied both Motions for Summary 24 Judgment, finding the parties’ competing stories prevented summary judgment resolution of this 1 case on any theory. (Dkt. No. 109 at 5.) Defendants filed Motions for Reconsideration, which 2 were also denied. (Dkt. Nos. 113, 115.) 3 Defendants appealed the denial of summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit accepted 4 Defendants Ditrich and Snaza’s appeals based on the denial of qualified immunity but did not 5 accept Thurston County’s appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 153 at 1.) See 6 Horton by Horton v. City of Santa Maria, 915 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2019) (“The denial of 7 summary judgment to a municipal defendant on a Monell claim is . . . no different from the 8 denial of any ordinary motion for summary judgment, and so is not immediately appealable.”). 9 On December 15, 2022, this Court held a scheduling conference with the parties. (Dkt. 10 Nos. 228, 229.) Defendants’ counsel conveyed his intent to move for summary judgment on 11 Plaintiff’s Monell claim. 12 The Court DIRECTS Defendant Thurston County to explain in no more than three pages 13 why its proposed motion for summary judgment is not precluded by its prior Motion for 14 Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 31), which has already been decided. Specifically, Defendant 15 Thurston County previously argued the absence of “evidence that Thurston County had a policy 16 or custom of any kind that relates to the constitutional claims in this action” (Id. at 19), which 17 Plaintiff responded to (see Dkt. No. 52 at 24-25). 18 Defendant SHALL file this explanation by January 2, 2023. 19 Dated this 15th day of December, 2022. 20 The foregoing Minute Order authorized by THE HONORABLE DAVID G. 21 ESTUDILLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. 22 23 24