# Snell v. State of Washington

> District Court, W.D. Washington · May 8, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10708692

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Washington
- **Decided:** May 8, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10708692

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10708692. Public record. Not legal advice.