Opinion

Snell v. State of Washington

Court
District Court, W.D. Washington
Filed
May 8, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 32.5%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

7

KIM SNELL, CASE NO. 3:20-cv-06028-JHC

8

Plaintiff,

ORDER

9

v.

10

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON;

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND

11

HEALTH SERVICES, JUDITH A.

FITZGERALD and UNA I. WILEY,

12

Defendant.

13

14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. # 50.

15 The Court concludes that there is no manifest error in its prior ruling. See LCR 7(h). And even

16 if Plaintiff were correct that she spoke on a matter of public concern, qualified immunity would

17 preclude her § 1983 claims.

18 As the Court explained in its prior Order (Dkt. # 48), the Ninth Circuit has held that the

19 determination of whether a public employee’s speech is constitutionally protected “turns on a

20 context-intensive, case-by-case balancing analysis,” and that “the law regarding such claims will

21 rarely, if ever, be sufficiently ‘clearly established’ to preclude qualified immunity under Harlow

22 and its progeny.” Moran v. State of Wash., 147 F.3d 839, 847 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff has cited

23 several cases holding that the right to exercise protected speech without suffering retaliation is

24

l “clearly established.” Dkt. # 50 at 7 (citing Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006);

2 || Aydelotte v. Town of Skykomish, C14-307MJP, 2020 WL 4347261, at *5 (W.D. Wash. July 29,

3 2020); Tucker v. State of Cal. Dept. of Educ., 97 F.3d 1204, 1210 (9th Cir. 1996). But Plaintiff

4 does not cite any cases holding that speech like Ms. Snell’s at issue is, in fact, constitutionally

5 || protected.

6 The question before the Court is whether Plaintiffs speech was so clearly protected by

7 First Amendment that it would have been patently unreasonable for Defendants to conclude

g || that their actions were lawful. See, e.g., Lytle v. Wondrash, 182 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 1999).

g || Plaintiff has not persuaded the Court on this point. The Court therefore denies the motion.

10 Dated this 8th day of May, 2023.

1]

12 Chur

13 John H. Chun

United States District Judge

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.