“A court may decline to 15 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has ‘dismissed all claims 16 over which it has original jurisdiction.’”
How later courts described this case
- “A court may decline to 15 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has ‘dismissed all claims 16 over which it has original jurisdiction.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
KEITH BENNETT, et al., Case No. C24-2065RSM
9
10 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
11 v.
12
KING COUNTY, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
I. INTRODUCTION
16
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. #20.
17
Plaintiffs have filed an opposition brief and a proposed amended complaint. See Dkt. #25. The
18
19 Court has determined that it can rule without the need of oral argument. For the reasons below,
20 the Court GRANTS this Motion.
21
II. BACKGROUND1
22
Plaintiffs are former employees of King County who worked for the County’s
23
Department of Public Safety and provided law enforcement services within King County,
24
25 Washington.
26
27
1 The Court will accept all facts stated in the Complaint, Dkt. #1, as true for purposes of this Motion. The following
28 facts come from that pleading unless otherwise noted. The Court will focus on only those facts relevant to
Defendants’ Motion.
Defendant Mitzi Johanknecht was publicly elected as the King County Sheriff in
1
2 November of 2017 and served as Sheriff until her term expired on December 31, 2021.
3 On August 9, 2021, King County issued ACO-8-27-EO, which mandated all County
4
Executive Branch employees be “fully vaccinated” against COVID-19 by October 18, 2021, or
5
get an exemption for either medical or religious reasons. Failure to get vaccinated or to get an
6
exemption would result in termination.
7
8 Up until December 12, 2021, each Plaintiff in this case was employed by King County as
9 police officers. Each Plaintiff was terminated for not being “fully vaccinated” by the deadline.
10
The dates of termination ranged from December 12, 2021, to June of 2022.
11
Each Plaintiff requested King County grant them a religious exemption. These were
12
13 submitted in writing, except for Plaintiff Kearney, who notified his employer orally. Each
14 Plaintiff’s religious exemption request (except that of Plaintiff Kearney) was granted. Each
15
Plaintiff requested that their employer accommodate their religious exemption that had been
16
granted. Defendants denied each request for accommodation.
17
Plaintiffs filed this § 1983 suit on December 13, 2024, alleging that Defendants’ actions
18
19 violated: Plaintiffs’ rights contained in the Free Exercise Clause of the United States
20 Constitution, procedural due process, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Contract Clause, along
21
with similar claims under the Washington State Constitution. In addition to claims against the
22
County, there are claims against King County Executive Dow Constantine and other individuals
23
associated with King County Sheriff’s office. Plaintiffs also bring claims for violation of
24
25 Plaintiffs’ right to privacy, for discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination,
26 and for breach of contract.
27
28
III. DISCUSSION
1
2 A. Legal Standard
3 In making a 12(b)(6) assessment, the court accepts all facts alleged in the complaint as
4
true, and makes all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Baker v.
5
Riverside County Office of Educ., 584 F.3d 821, 824 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted).
6
However, the court is not required to accept as true a “legal conclusion couched as a factual
7
8 allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
9 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
10
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678. This requirement is met
11
when the plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
12
13 that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The complaint need not include
14 detailed allegations, but it must have “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
15
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Absent
16
facial plausibility, a plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed. Id. at 570.
17
B. Analysis
18
19 Defendants argue, inter alia, that Plaintiffs’ federal claims are barred by qualified
20 immunity because Plaintiffs fail to show that any individual Defendant violated a clearly
21
established right. Dkt. #20 at 20–27. Qualified immunity protects “government officials . . .
22
from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
23
statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.
24
25 Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1982). “[T]o overcome
26 qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that [defendants] (1) violated a federal statutory or
27
constitutional right and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”
28
Moore v. Garnand, 83 F.4th 743, 750 (9th Cir. 2023) (internal quotations omitted). A court “may
1
2 begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering whether there is a violation of clearly
3 established law without determining whether a constitutional violation occurred.” Krainski v.
4
Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).
5
“To determine whether a constitutional right has been clearly established for qualified immunity
6
purposes,” the court “must survey the legal landscape and examine those cases that are most like
7
8 the instant case.” Id. at 970 (quoting Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir. 1996)). To
9 show that a right is “clearly established,” “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or
10
constitutional question beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741, 131 S. Ct. 2074,
11
179 L. Ed. 2d 1149 (2011). Additionally, the right must have been established “at the time of
12
13 the alleged violation.” Moran v. State of Wash., 147 F.3d 839. 844 (9th Cir. 1998). The Supreme
14 Court has cautioned against defining “clearly established right” with excessive generality.
15
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778-79, 134 S. Ct. 2012, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1056 (2014).
16
Thus, the question here is whether the individual Defendants’ alleged misconduct
17
violated a clearly established constitutional right that a reasonable person in their position would
18
19 have known about. Plaintiffs point to no case law indicating that Defendants’ actions violated a
20 clearly established right. This failure is fatal to their federal claims because a “plaintiff must . .
21
. identify precedent that holds certain conduct is a constitutional violation under facts not
22
distinguishable in a fair way from the facts presented in the case at hand.” Orn v. City of Tacoma,
23
949 F.3d 1167, 1178 (9th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).
24
25 Moreover, district courts have consistently found that officials are entitled to qualified
26 immunity in challenges to public health orders and vaccine mandates passed during the midst of
27
the global COVID-19 pandemic. See, e.g., Strandquist v. Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health
28
Servs., 3:23-CV-05071-TMC, 2024 WL 4645146, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2024); Sinclair v.
1
2 Blewett, No. 2:20-CV-1397-CL, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 643, 2024 WL 21434, at *4 (D. Or. Jan.
3 2, 2024); Northland Baptist Church of St. Paul, Minnesota v. Walz, 530 F. Supp. 3d 790, 806-
4
807 (D. Minn. 2021), aff'd sub nom. Glow In One Mini Golf, LLC v. Walz, 37 F.4th 1365 (8th
5
Cir. 2022); New Mexico Elks Ass'n v. Grisham, 595 F. Supp. 3d 1018, 1027 (D.N.M. 2022);
6
Benner v. Wolf, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170722, 2021 WL 4123973, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 9,
7
8 2021). Ninth Circuit precedent affirms the reasoning of these decisions. See Bacon v. Woodward,
9 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14759, 2024 WL 3041850, at *1 (9th Cir. June 18, 2024) (upholding
10
facial validity of Proclamation against Free Exercise challenge); Johnson v. Kotek, No. 22-35624,
11
2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4196, 2024 WL 747022, at *3 (9th Cir. Feb. 23, 2024) (qualified
12
13 immunity bars substantive due process claims against Oregon governor for vaccine mandate);
14 Armstrong v. Newsom, No. 21-55060, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37877, 2021 WL 6101260, at *1
15
(9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2021) (qualified immunity bars suits against California governor for his stay-
16
at-home executive order because the order did not violate clearly established law in March 2020).
17
Since the filing of the instant Motion, three decisions in this District have dismissed federal
18
19 constitutional claims similar to those raised here, in the same context of public employees’
20 terminations pursuant to COVID-19 vaccination requirements. See Hanson v. Ferguson, No.
21
3:24-CV-05989-DGE, 2025 WL 1434740, at *1 (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2025); Colombo v. Dep’t
22
of Nat. Res., No. 3:24-CV-05887-DGE, 2025 WL 1434903, at *1 (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2025);
23
Shirley v. Wash. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, No. 3:23-CV-05077-DGE, 2025 WL 1360872, at *1
24
25 (W.D. Wash. May 9, 2025); see also Seagraves v. Dep’t of Children Youth & Families, 3:24-
26 CV-05081-TMC, 2025 WL 1031306, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 7, 2025), reconsideration denied,
27
2025 WL 1180380 (Apr. 23, 2025), appeal docketed, No. 25-3282 (9th Cir. May 22, 2025);
28
Strandquist, 2024 WL 4645146, at *6, reconsideration denied, 2024 WL 4979859 (Dec. 4,
1
2 2024); Taylor v. Wash. Dep’t of Corr. (Taylor II), No. C23-6186-MLP, 2024 WL 4529236, at *3
3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 18, 2024), appeal docketed, No. 24-7120 (9th Cir. Nov. 25, 2024); Gray v.
4
Wash. Dep’t of Transp. (Gray I), No. 3:23-cv-05418-DGE, 2023 WL 6622232, at *2–6 (W.D.
5
Wash. Oct. 11, 2023), aff’d, Gray v. Wash. Dep’t of Transp. (Gray II), No. 23-3278, 2024 WL
6
5001484 (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2024).
7
8 To state a free exercise claim, Plaintiffs must allege that the government action in
9 question “substantially burdens [the] practice of [their] religion,” Taylor v. Wash. State Dep’t of
10
Corr. (Taylor I), No. C23-6186-MLP, 2024 WL 2209684, at *4 (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2024)
11
(quoting Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2015)), and that the Defendants “acted
12
13 with discriminatory purpose,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (citing, inter alia, Church of Lukumi Babalu
14 Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 540–41 (1993)). Defendants first argue that Plaintiffs fail to
15
allege their religious practices in any detail, relying instead on vague “labels and conclusions.”
16
Dkt. #20 at 21. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to plead plausible facts of religious animus.
17
Id. at 22. In any event, Defendants argue that qualified immunity bars this claim consistent with
18
19 the long list of analogous cases finding as much above. The Court agrees.
20 Defendants next assert that “Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim fails because
21
Plaintiffs do not identify any process they were entitled to but denied.” Dkt. #20 at 23. Plaintiffs
22
do not identify clearly established law requiring a pre-deprivation hearing, like a Loudermill
23
hearing, for employees that are separated due to a generally applicable requirement, like a vaccine
24
25 mandate. Indeed, Ninth Circuit precedent cuts the opposite way. In Bacon, supra, the court
26 explained that “[t]he notice provided in the Proclamation was . . . sufficient” to satisfy procedural
27
due process challenges to “the substantive rules applied” while implementing the Proclamation,
28
including objections to “what [plaintiffs] considered to be an overly stringent, ‘sham’ approach
1
2 to accommodations.” 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14759, 2024 WL 3041850, at *2 (citing Rea v.
3 Matteucci, 121 F.3d 483, 484-85 (9th Cir. 1997)). As this Court and other courts have repeatedly
4
recognized, “when a policy is generally applicable, employees are not ‘entitled to process above
5
and beyond the notice provided by the enactment and publication’ of the policy itself.” Bacon,
6
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215778, 2021 WL 5183059, *3, see also Strandquist v. Wash. State Dep’t
7
8 of Soc. & Health Servs., No. 3:23-CV-05071-TMC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198383, 2024 WL
9 4645146, *6 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2024); Shirley v. Wash. Dep't of Fish and Wildlife, No. 3:23-
10
CV-05077-DGE, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89105, 2025 WL 1360872, *5 (W.D. Wash. May 9,
11
2025); Harris v. Univ. of Massachusetts, Lowell, 557 F. Supp. 3d 304, 312 (D. Mass. 2021);
12
13 Valdez v. Grisham, 559 F. Supp. 3d 1161, 1178 (D.N.M. 2021) aff'd, No. 21-2105, 2022 U.S.
14 App. LEXIS 16330, 2022 WL 2129071 (10th Cir. June 14, 2022). The Court therefore finds the
15
individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs’ Procedural Due Process
16
claim and will dismiss this claim with prejudice.
17
A plaintiff asserting an equal protection claim under § 1983 “must show that the
18
19 defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon
20 membership in a protected class.” Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013).
21
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to plead “specific, nonconclusory factual allegations”
22
establishing any such “improper motive” by any individual Defendant. Dkt. #20 at 25.
23
Defendants next state:
24
25 Second, accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true that “Defendants
treated Plaintiffs differently and less favorably than similarly
26 situated providers who were not subject to the Vaccine Mandate for
27 a secular reason,” Compl. ¶ 377—in other words, those who were
granted a medical exemption—Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly
28 allege that those two groups are “similarly situated” as required to
state an equal protection claim. Indeed, numerous courts, in both the
1
free exercise and equal protection contexts, have held they are not.
2 For example, unlike religious exemptions, “medical exemptions are
likely to be ‘limited in duration’” (as in the case of temporary
3 illness) and such exemptions “serve[] the primary interest for
imposing the mandate”—protecting “health and safety.” Doe v. San
4
Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 19 F.4th 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2021) (free
5 exercise) (citations omitted); see also Mills, 16 F.4th at 30–32, 35
(same); We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul, 17 F.4th 266, 286 (2d
6 Cir. 2021), opinion clarified, 17 F.4th 368 (2d Cir. 2021); Royce,
2025 WL 834769, at *8 (collecting cases). Plaintiffs’ “threadbare
7
recital that” medically and religiously exempt employees are
8 “similarly situated” “will not suffice to survive a motion to dismiss.”
Olson v. California, 104 F.4th 66, 77 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up);
9 see Compl. ¶ 377.
10
Id. The Court agrees with Defendants and finds that this claim is properly dismissed.
11
To state a claim for a violation of the Contract Clause, plaintiffs must satisfy a two-part
12
13 inquiry. Sveen v. Melin, 584 U.S. 811, 819 (2018). Plaintiffs must show (1) the law at issue
14 “operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship,” and (2) the law is not “drawn
15
in an appropriate and reasonable way to advance a significant and legitimate public interest.” Id.
16
(cleaned up). Defendants argue that “[e]ven if Plaintiffs had properly pleaded an impairment of
17
their contractual rights (they haven’t), they fail to meet the second prong because ‘there is no
18
19 doubt that’ requiring vaccination as a condition of employment ‘is an appropriate and reasonable
20 way to advance a significant and legitimate public purpose, which is curbing the spread of
21
COVID-19.’” Dkt. #20 at 26 (citing Wise v. Inslee, No. 2:21-CV-0288-TOR, 2022 WL 1243662,
22
at *6 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2022); Apt. Ass’n of L.A. Cnty., Inc. v. City of L.A., 10 F.4th 905, 913
23
(9th Cir. 2021)). The Court again agrees with Defendants’ analysis.
24
25 Given all of the above, the Court finds that the individual Defendants are entitled to
26 qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs’ federal causes of action and will dismiss these claims with
27
prejudice.
28
Defendants also argue that claims against King County should be dismissed for lack of
1
2 Monell liability. Local governments may not be sued under section 1983 for injuries inflicted
3 solely by their employees or agents. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
4
However, municipalities may be held liable under section 1983 when an official policy or custom
5
causes a constitutional violation. Id. at 690–91. A plaintiff must plausibly plead the following to
6
proceed with a Monell claim: “(1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of which she
7
8 was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate
9 indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (4) that the policy is the moving force
10
behind the constitutional violation.” Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. No. 40 Cnty. of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432,
11
438 (9th Cir. 1997) (cleaned up). A section 1983 Monell claim based on public policy can be
12
13 stated in one of three ways: (1) when official policies or established customs inflict a
14 constitutional injury; (2) when omissions or failure to act amount to a local government policy
15
of “deliberate indifference” to constitutional rights; or (3) when a local government official with
16
final policy-making authority ratifies a subordinate’s unconstitutional conduct. Brown v. Contra
17
Costa Cnty., No. C 12-1923 PJH, 2014 WL 1347680, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2014). A plaintiff
18
19 must allege sufficient facts regarding the specific nature of the alleged policy, custom, or practice
20 to allow the defendant to effectively defend itself; merely alleging that a policy, custom, or
21
practice existed is not enough. See AE ex rel. Hernandez v. Cnty. of Tulure, 666 F.3d 631, 636–
22
38 (9th Cir. 2012).
23
As already explained above, Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege a constitutional
24
25 injury or other deprivation of rights. Because such injury or deprivation is a predicate of a Monell
26 claim, Plaintiffs’ claims against the County fail for this reason alone. Even if Plaintiffs had
27
alleged a constitutional injury, their claims against King County would fail because they have
28
not alleged any policy, custom, or practice for Monell purposes. Defendants, citing to a case out
1
2 of California, argue that “in 2020 and 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic was novel and quickly
3 evolving,” and thus “any unwritten policy concerning COVID-19 protocols could not have been
4
‘so permanent’ or ‘well settled’ that it amounted to an established custom.” Dkt. #20 at 29 (citing
5
Morris v. City of L.A., No. 2:22-cv-09277-ODW, 2024 WL 4370817, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1,
6
2024)). The Court generally agrees with this, and with Defendants’ arguments about a lack of
7
8 non-conclusory allegations to support a theory of ratification or omissions amounting to a policy
9 of deliberate indifference. See id. at 29–30. These are further reasons to dismiss the federal
10
claims against the County.
11
Having dismissed all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court
12
13 declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §
14 1367(c)(3); see also Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A court may decline to
15
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has ‘dismissed all claims
16
over which it has original jurisdiction.’”). The Court will dismiss the state law claims without
17
prejudice.
18
19 Where a complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, “leave to amend should be
20 granted unless the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the
21
challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well
22
Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal here is a legal conclusion based
23
on case law and certain facts not in dispute. Plaintiffs fail to point to other facts consistent with
24
25 the challenged pleading that could cure the above deficiencies. Given all of this, the Court will
26 not grant leave to amend.
27
28
IV. CONCLUSION
1
2 Having considered the briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds
3 and ORDERS:
4
1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. #20, is GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs’ federal
5
law claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
6
2) The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ supplemental state law
7
8 claims and DISMISSES these claims without prejudice.
9 3) This case is CLOSED.
10
DATED this 7th day of January, 2026.
11
A
12
13
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28