Manycolors

1 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

2 Apr 20, 2026

3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

9 CYNTHIA MANYCOLORS, as No. 2:25-CV-00354-SAB

10 Administrator of The Estate of Bjorn

11 Manycolors, and its statutory

12 beneficiaries, ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO

13 Plaintiff, DISMISS

14 v.

15 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF’S

16 OFFICE, SPOKANE COUNTY, CITY

17 OF SPOKANE VALLEY, CITY OF

18 SPOKANE VALLEY POLICE

19 DEPARTMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE,

20 SPOKANE POLICE DEPARTMENT,

21 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL,

22 BRENT MILLER, Deputy, in his official

23 and personal capacity, MATTHEW

24 PETERSON, Deputy, in his official and

25 personal capacity, JOHN NOWELS,

26 Sheriff, in his official and personal

27 capacity, JESSICA JIMERSON, in her

28 official and personal capacity, and

1 AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE

2

AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., a

3

foreign Corporation,

4

Defendants.

5

6

7 Before the Court are Defendant City of Spokane’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF

8 No. 15, and Defendant Washington State Patrol’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 17.

9 Plaintiff is represented by Caitlin R. Skurky, Elizabeth Nicoletta, and Joshua P.

10 Maurer. Defendants are represented by Heather C. Yakely, Lynden P. Smithson,

11 Brandon E. Slaven, Brian P. Waters, Matthew C. Halldorson, and Jennifer G.

12 Crisera. The motions were considered without oral argument.

13 Factual Allegations

14 The following facts are taken from Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint:

15 On June 4, 2023, at 12:10 a.m., Bjorn Manycolors was walking down N.

16 Dyer Road in Spokane Valley, Washington. At the same time, Spokane County

17 Sheriff’s Deputies Brent Miller and Matthew Peterson were driving southbound on

18 N. Dyer Road. Deputies Miller and Peterson spotted Mr. Manycolors and stopped

19 their vehicle in front of him. The Deputies exited the car and approached Mr.

20 Manycolors, who looked confused and surprised by the sudden stop.

21 Within two minutes of making contact with Mr. Manycolors, Deputy Miller

22 grabbed him without warning or explanation. Deputy Peterson soon joined in

23 physically restraining Mr. Manycolors. Neither Deputy informed Mr. Manycolors

24 that he was being detained, that he was under arrest, nor explained what Mr.

25 Manycolors had done to warrant a physical arrest or detention.

26 Upon being physically restrained, Mr. Manycolors told the Deputies “Hey,

27 get off me.” The Deputies continued to physically restrain him. Mr. Manycolors

28 continued to make verbal requests to be released, and after his fourth request, he

1 pulled a firearm from his pants and released a warning shot into the air. Upon

2 hearing the gun shot, the Deputies released Mr. Manycolors, who then ran in the

3 opposite direction. As he ran away, the Deputies shot at Mr. Manycolors several

4 times, hitting him with multiple bullets. Mr. Manycolors fell to the ground.

5 Deputy Peterson then notified that shots had been fired over his radio, and

6 the Deputies approached Mr. Manycolors. After nearby residents began

7 questioning the Deputies as to what happened, the Deputies attempted to determine

8 whether Mr. Manycolors was responsive. When Mr. Manycolors did not respond,

9 Deputy Miller called for medics to be staged.

10 Between 12:16 and 12:17 a.m., additional officers arrived at the scene. One

11 officer dragged Mr. Manycolors’ body across the gravel by one arm to a different

12 spot where officers began placing bandages atop his bullet wounds. At no point did

13 any officer check Mr. Manycolors’ vitals or call for additional medical assistance.

14 Around 12:20 a.m. an officer began chest compressions.

15 Medics arrived on the scene at 12:23 a.m. and American Medical Response

16 Ambulance Service, Inc. (AMR) paramedic Jessica Jimerson indicated his wounds

17 were such that Mr. Manycolors was probably not savable. Ms. Jimerson did not

18 take Mr. Manycolors’ vitals or examine his wounds. An officer asked Ms.

19 Jimerson if a doctor should be called, to which she agreed, but indicated the doctor

20 would likely make the same call. Before calling a doctor, Ms. Jimerson noted that

21 Mr. Manycolors’ arm was behind his back and should be moved so that chest

22 compressions would be done more effectively. When officers informed her that

23 Mr. Manycolors was handcuffed, Ms. Jimerson laughed and made no effort to

24 assist or request that the handcuffs be removed. Ms. Jimerson then stepped away to

25 call a doctor and spoke on the phone for approximately one minute before directing

26 the officers to “call it.” Mr. Manycolors was pronounced dead at 12:25 a.m. Ms.

27 Jimerson began to ask follow-up questions about what had transpired, and at one

28 point stated “good shot” when looking at Mr. Manycolors’ body.

1 Later, an unknown officer accompanied Deputy Miller away from the scene

2 and asked whether his body camera was on. When Deputy Miller confirmed it was

3 on, the pair stopped speaking and walked to Deputy Miller’s vehicle. The unknown

4 officer asked a nearby officer if Deputy Miller was okay to turn off his body

5 camera, and the two did not speak until the body camera was turned off.

6 At approximately 3:18 a.m., Leuitenant Jerad Kiehn with the Spokane

7 County Sheriff’s Office called the Office of Independent Investigation (OII).

8 Plaintiff asserts Lieutenant Kiehn relayed false and incomplete information to OII

9 to avoid OII involvement and keep the primary investigation in the hands of the

10 Spokane Independent Investigation Response (SIIR) Team. The SIIR protocol was

11 established through Wash. Rev. Code § 10.114.010 to provide an independent

12 means for investigation of incidents of deadly force used by a law enforcement

13 agency in the Spokane area. The SIIR protocol was initiated, and Detective Ben

14 Green of the Spokane Police Department and Troy Corkins of the Washington

15 State Patrol conducted an investigation of the incident.

16 Plaintiff asserts Patrol Officer Corkins requested and obtained a search

17 warrant to investigate Mr. Manycolors rather than Deputies Miller and Peterson or

18 the shooting itself. Plaintiff asserts this led to a biased and incomplete collection of

19 evidence resulting in a substandard investigation. Deputies Miller and Peterson

20 refused to discuss the events leading up to the shooting and refused to provide a

21 statement after the fact. Plaintiff asserts Detective Green conducted his SIIR

22 investigation based on his own opinions of what transpired before the shooting.

23 Following the investigation by Detective Green and Patrol Officer Corkins,

24 the Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office deemed the shooting lawful. Plaintiff

25 requested all documents related to the investigation via a Public Records Act

26 (PRA) request. It was revealed that the investigation consisted solely of a review of

27 fourteen officer reports, none of which were written by officers present at the time

28

1 of the shooting. No bodycam footage, videos, or photographs were provided in

2 response to the PRA request.

3 Plaintiff submitted additional PRA requests throughout 2024 and 2025. In

4 August 2024, Deputies Miller and Peterson issued compelled statements regarding

5 the shooting of Mr. Manycolors, and the statements directly contradicted Detective

6 Green’s analysis and opinions. These statements were not provided to Plaintiff

7 until late May 2025. Plaintiff asserts there are numerous documents subject to her

8 PRA requests that have yet to be provided.

9 This lawsuit was initiated by Mr. Manycolors’ mother, Cynthia Manycolors,

10 in Spokane Superior Court on August 4, 2025, and it was removed to this Court on

11 September 11, 2025. Defendants City of Spokane and Washington State Patrol

12 now move the Court to dismiss the Complaint as to the claims asserted against

13 them.

14 To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege

15 “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.

16 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face when the

17 pleading contains sufficient factual allegations that enable the court to reasonably

18 infer that the defendant could be liable. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

19 (2009).

20 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either the lack of a

21 cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a

22 cognizable legal theory. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d

23 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court

24 must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Usher v.

25 City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). However, the court is not

26 required to accept conclusory allegations as true or to accept any unreasonable

27 inferences in a complaint. In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th

28 Cir. 2008).

1 City of Spokane’s Motion to Dismiss

2 Defendant City of Spokane (the City) is a municipal entity in the State of

3 Washington and is the employer of Detective Ben Green. In the operative

4 Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following claims against the City: (1) Municipal

5 Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) Conspiracy to Commit a § 1983 Violation;

6 (3) Respondeat Superior/Vicarious Liability; and (4) Wrongful Death.

7 The City argues Plaintiff’s claims under § 1983 fail as a municipality is only

8 subject to suit under § 1983 if it is alleged to have caused a constitutional violation

9 through a “policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted

10 and promulgated by that body’s officers,” and Plaintiff cannot allege any official

11 policy or custom of the City contributed to a violation of any constitutional right of

12 Mr. Manycolors. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).

13 Regarding Plaintiff’s third claim, The City asserts it is not vicariously liable

14 for the actions of Detective Green as he acted within the scope of his employment

15 and is entitled to qualified immunity. Lastly, the City argues Plaintiff’s third and

16 fourth claims fail as they are based on a tort claim of “negligent investigation,”

17 which is not a viable cause of action under Washington State law.

18 Plaintiff bases her constitutional claims on the City’s involvement in the

19 SIIR protocol. She asserts the City is involved in a multi-agency conspiracy to

20 cover up constitutional violations through its participation in the SIIR program.

21 Through participating in this program, agencies allegedly enter into and engage in

22 a quid-pro-quo agreement to conduct insufficient investigations to protect officers

23 who violate the constitutional rights of citizens.

24 To make a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that their constitutional

25 rights were violated, and the violation was caused by a person acting under color of

26 state law. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). Municipalities are liable

27 under § 1983 for constitutional violations that occur as a result of a pervasive

28 policy, practice, or custom. Horton by Horton v. City of Santa Monica, 915 F.3d

1 592, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2019). A municipality may be liable for acts pursuant to a

2 custom even if it is not officially adopted or approved, so long as that custom has

3 become a traditional method of carrying out policy. Monell, 436 U.S. at 659;

4 Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996). The policy must be the moving

5 force behind the constitutional violation. Bd. Of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S.

6 397, 404 (1997).

7 To establish a Conspiracy to Commit a § 1983 Violation claim, a plaintiff

8 must allege (1) the existence of an express or implied agreement among the

9 defendants to deprive him of his constitutional rights, and (2) an actual deprivation

10 of those rights resulting from that agreement. Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 583, 592

11 (9th Cir. 2010).

12 Plaintiff argues Mr. Manycolors’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights

13 were deprived when he was stopped by Deputies Miller and Peterson without

14 probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Plaintiff then alleges

15 the Deputies felt entitled to stop and seize Mr. Manycolors as they knew they

16 would be protected through the SIIR protocol, which the City, through its alleged

17 practice of conducting substandard investigations to protect offending officers, was

18 involved with. Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts for her § 1983 claims to survive

19 at this stage. A motion to dismiss should be based on the pleadings, and the Court

20 notes the City submitted additional factual material which is an invitation to treat

21 this motion as a motion for summary judgment. The Court declines that implied

22 invitation. Given the facts as alleged, this case should not be resolved on the

23 pleadings, but rather after all parties have had an opportunity to engage in

24 discovery.

25 Plaintiff’s third and fourth claims against the City are based on the allegedly

26 negligent investigation conducted by Detective Ben Green following the death of

27 Mr. Manycolors. She asserts the City is vicariously liable for Detective Green’s

28 investigation pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 10.114.010, as Detective Green was

1 an employee of the City and his investigation was substandard and negligent.

2 Plaintiff further asserts this larger pattern of negligent investigation and lack of

3 accountability for offending officers contributed to the death of Mr. Manycolors,

4 and she can accordingly recover against the City for wrongful death.

5 An employer is vicariously liable to third parties for its employees’ torts

6 committed within the scope of employment. Robel v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wash.2d

7 35, 53 (2002). An employee is within the scope of employment if they are (1)

8 engaged in the performance of duties required by his employment contract or

9 specifically directed by the employer, or (2) engaged in the furtherance of the

10 employer's interests. Id.

11 Under Washington Law, when the tortious conduct of one person results in

12 the death of another, the decedent’s representative can sue for damages. Triplett v.

13 Wash. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 166 Wash.App. 423, 428 (2012).

14 The underlying tort supporting this claim is the allegedly negligent

15 investigation conducted by Detective Green. On the face of the pleadings, there is

16 no clear tort of negligent investigation that Plaintiff can allege under the State

17 provisions referenced and facts alleged. Indeed, generally, there is no cause of

18 action for negligent law enforcement investigations except in narrow

19 circumstances. Janaszack v. State, 173 Wash. App. 703, 725 (2013); Babcock v.

20 State, 116 Wash.2d 596, 606-07 (1991) (recognizing a limited cause of action of

21 negligent investigation in child abuse and neglect investigations). As such, the

22 City’s Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff’s Vicarious Liability/Respondeat Superior

23 claim against the City is granted. However, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to

24 amend her complaint to plead additional facts and/or make alternative tort claims

25 within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Order.

26 Although Plaintiff’s Wrongful Death claim against the City cannot be based

27 on a tort of negligent investigation, the City is potentially liable under § 1983 for

28 constitutional torts. As Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged enough facts for her § 1983

1 claims to survive at this stage, Plaintiff can maintain a Wrongful Death claim

2 against the City regarding its alleged constitutional violations. Accordingly, the

3 City’s Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff’s Wrongful Death claim is denied.

4 Washington State Patrol’s Motion to Dismiss

5 Defendant Washington State Patrol (WSP) is an agency of the State of

6 Washington. It asserts it did not consent to the initial removal of this action, as its

7 first appearance in the above-captioned matter occurred after removal to federal

8 court. WSP now moves the Court to dismiss it from this action based on its

9 Eleventh Amendment Immunity from suit in federal court.

10 The Eleventh Amendment entitles states to immunity from suit by

11 individuals without the state’s consent. Arizona Students’ Ass’n v. Arizona Bd. Of

12 Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2016). There are three exceptions to this

13 immunity: (1) Congress has abrogated immunity within a federal statute; (2) the

14 State has waived immunity and allowed individuals to sue it pursuant to specific

15 state statutes; and (3) in claims seeking prospective injunctive relief against state

16 officials to remedy a state’s ongoing violation of federal law. Id. at 865.

17 Here, Plaintiff offers no legal or factual basis upon which the Court can find

18 that the State of Washington has waived immunity to suit. Accordingly, Defendant

19 WSP is entitled to immunity and is dismissed from this case.

20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

21 1. Defendant City of Spokane’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 15, is

22 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

23 2. Plaintiff’s Respondeat Superior/Vicarious Liability claim against the

24 City of Spokane is DISMISSED. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her complaint

25 within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Order to plead additional facts and/or

26 underlying tort claims.

27 3. Defendant Washington State Patrol’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 17,

28 is GRANTED.

1 4. The claims asserted against Defendant Washington State Patrol are

DISMISSED without prejudice. The District Court Clerk is directed to

3|| terminate Washington State Patrol as a Defendant in the above-captioned matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter

5|| this Order and provide copies to counsel.

DATED this 20th day of April 2026.

Lx Se >, ~

sin in phar

10 Stan Bastian

Chief United States District Judge

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ADNUD DU. AATIANIC TA ATIOCNATOE & in