# Bromm

> District Court, W.D. Washington · September 14, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11441443

## Case

- **Full name:** Paul Bromm v. Lewis County, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Washington
- **Decided:** September 14, 2026
- **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/11441443

## Opinion text

1
2
3

4

5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
7
PAUL BROMM, CASE NO. 3:26-cv-05384-BHS
8
Plaintiff, ORDER
9 v.
10 LEWIS COUNTY, et. al.,
11 Defendants.
12

13 This matter is before the Court on defendants Warren McCleod, Jonathan Meyer,
14 Robert Snaza, and Sean Swope’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 26.
15 I. BACKGROUND1
16 Plaintiff Paul Bromm was employed as a part-time Deputy Coroner with Lewis
17 County. After conservative activist and media personality Charlie Kirk was shot in
18 September 2025, Bromm shared memes and made other posts on his Facebook that
19 appeared to make light of the killing, even suggesting it was deserved. Bromm was
20

21 1 A more detailed accounting of the factual and procedural history can be found in the
Court’s recent order denying Lewis County and the City of Centralia’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt.
22 42.
1 placed on administrative leave and then terminated for his posts. Bromm sued Lewis
2 County, the City of Centralia, and five individual defendants, asserting 42 U.S.C. § 1983
3 claims premised on alleged violations of his First Amendment right to free speech, and

4 that defendant Commissioner Sean Swope “doxed” him in violation of RCW 4.24.792.
5 Four of those individual defendants—Coroner Warren McCleod, Commissioner Sean
6 Swope, Sheriff Robert Snaza, and Prosecuting Attorney Jonathan Meyer—now move for
7 summary judgment.
8 II. DISCUSSION

9 A. Defendants Swope, McCleod, Snaza, and Meyer’s motion for summary
judgment
10
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
11
materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is “no genuine dispute as to any
12
material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.
13
P. 56(a). In determining whether an issue of fact exists, the Court must view all evidence
14
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in
15
that party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–50 (1986);
16
Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1996). A genuine issue of material fact
17
exists where there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to find for the
18
nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The inquiry is “whether the evidence
19
presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-
20
sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 251–52. The moving party
21
bears the initial burden of showing that there is no evidence that supports an element
22
1 essential to the nonmovant’s claim. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
2 Once the movant has met this burden, the nonmoving party then must show that there is a
3 genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. If the nonmoving party fails to

4 establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, “the moving party is entitled to
5 judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323–24.
6 There is no requirement that the moving party negate elements of the non-
7 movant’s case. Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 885 (1990). Once the moving
8 party has met its burden, the non-movant must then produce concrete evidence, without

9 merely relying on allegations in the pleadings, that there remain genuine factual issues.
10 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
11 Bromm accuses each individual defendant of conspiring to deprive him of his First
12 Amendment rights and having performed at least one overt act in furtherance of that
13 conspiracy. Dkt. 1 at 57-62. For his part in the events underlying this lawsuit, Meyer

14 invokes the defense of absolute prosecutorial immunity or, in the alternative, qualified
15 immunity. Defendants Swope, McCleod, and Snaza also invoke qualified immunity as a
16 defense to Bromm’s First Amendment claims. Lastly, Swope asserts a First Amendment
17 defense to the state law doxing claim against him. The issues are addressed in turn.
18 1. Prosecutorial immunity

19 Meyer claims his decision to place Bromm on a potential impeachment disclosure
20 list and issue a potential impeachment disclosure (PID) letter—to “Brady-list” him, as it
21 is often referred—is an action covered by absolute prosecutorial immunity. Dkt. 26 at 18-
22 21. If true, Meyer cannot be held civilly liable for his conduct, regardless of whether it
1 was wrongful. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 (1976). Bromm argues that
2 Meyer’s decision to issue a PID letter was administrative or investigative in nature, rather
3 than advocacy or preparation for a criminal prosecution, and therefore falls on the

4 unprotected side of the line. Dkt. 35 at 1-6. Specifically, Bromm argues that prosecutorial
5 immunity cannot apply to decisions divorced from specific, identifiable prosecutions or
6 charging decisions.
7 Prosecutorial immunity applies with “full force” to activities that are “intimately
8 associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430

9 (1976). When a prosecutor strays into administrative or investigative work of the type
10 normally performed by police, however, they are protected only by qualified immunity.
11 Botello v. Gammick, 413 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2005). To determine if the
12 challenged action is prosecutorial in nature, or merely administrative, the court looks to
13 the “nature of the function performed,” rather than the identity of the actor. Kalina v.

14 Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 127 (1997). The question is whether Meyer’s decision to place
15 Bromm on a Brady-list, and to inform Coroner McCleod of that decision, bore a
16 sufficient nexus to the judicial process.
17 The Ninth Circuit has held that a prosecutor’s refusal to pursue cases based on
18 concerns about witness credibility, and their communication of that decision to the

19 individual’s employer, is entitled to absolute immunity. See Roe v. City & Cnty. of San
20 Francisco, 109 F.3d 578, 583 (9th Cir. 1997). This is true whether the decision is reached
21 with respect to a specific criminal prosecution or as a policy for general application. See
22 id. at 583. In Roe, a police officer sued prosecutors because they refused to prosecute any
1 of his cases, allegedly in retaliation for a legal memo he had sent them, arguing this
2 violated his First Amendment rights. See id. at 580-582. Roe further argued that even if
3 prosecutorial immunity would shield the prosecutor’s decisions with respect to specific

4 cases, the immunity should be limited to those “typical, single-case situation[s],” as
5 opposed to a blanket policy of non-prosecution. The Court rejected the distinction and
6 held that a prosecutor’s judgment about Roe’s credibility as a witness was protected by
7 prosecutorial immunity, even if that decision were applied in a general fashion. Id. at 583.
8 Similarly, in Botello, a sexual assault investigator voiced concerns about the

9 reliability of a nurse who the District Attorney’s office frequently called to testify in
10 sexual assault cases. Botello alleged that two prosecuting attorneys demanded he “keep
11 his mouth shut” and threatened to retaliate if he continued advocating for oversight
12 measures. Id. at 973-74. Botello left his job with the Sheriff’s office and took a job with
13 another local police department. Unaware that the police department had already hired

14 Botello, the prosecutors phoned Botello’s new employer and tried to sabotage his hiring;
15 made false allegations about Botello’s character; demanded that he be excluded from any
16 phase of any investigation; and told the police department they would not file any case
17 where Botello had been involved in the investigation. Id. In response to these threats, the
18 police department assigned Botello to desk duty. Id. Botello sued.

19 In reviewing the prosecutors’ claim of absolute immunity, the Ninth Circuit broke
20 down the prosecutors’ actions into three phases, two of which it held were not eligible for
21 the defense of absolute immunity. First, the court held that the decision to call the police
22 department and attempt to dissuade it from hiring Botello was “simply an attempt to
1 disrupt an employment decision” and not a prosecutorial function. Id. at 977. Second, the
2 court held that the prosecutors demand to the department that Botello not be involved in
3 any phase of any investigation was “in essence dictating to local law enforcement

4 authorities how future criminal investigations should be conducted and staffed—an
5 administrative function.” Id. However, despite expressing reservations about the breadth
6 and lack of explanation for the prosecutors’ blanket decision not to prosecute any case in
7 which Botello had been involved, it applied Roe and held that their decision was shielded
8 by absolute immunity, as was the communication of that decision to Botello’s employer.

9 Id.
10 Courts have extended prosecutorial immunity to the decision to “Brady-list”
11 individuals. For instance, in Neri v. Cnty. of Stanislaus Dist. Attorney's Off., No. 1:10-
12 CV-823 AWI GSA, 2010 WL 3582575 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2010), the plaintiff was placed
13 on a Brady-list and was ultimately terminated by his employing agency as a result. He

14 then sued the prosecutor’s office, and when it raised the defense of prosecutorial
15 immunity, Neri argued that the decision to Brady-list him was unconnected from a
16 specific case, nor did it involve a decision whether to prosecute, and therefore was not
17 sufficiently connected to the judicial process. Id. at 3. The court rejected this argument,
18 explaining that “[o]nce information concerning a witness or potential witness comes into

19 the hands of a prosecutor, the prosecutor must evaluate how that evidence affects the
20 witness or potential witnesses” and that “[t]he duty to evaluate remains irrespective of
21 whether the information/evidence is obtained outside an active prosecution.” Id. at *6
22 (citing Roe); see also Sampaga v. Snohomish Cnty., No. 16-01310-RAJ, 2017 WL
1 2806836 (W.D. Wash. June 29, 2017) (immunizing prosecutor’s decision to Brady-list
2 police officer).
3 Meyer argues that Roe controls, and the Court agrees. Meyer attests that he

4 evaluated Bromm’s Facebook posts to determine whether they revealed bias or otherwise
5 might need to be disclosed to defense counsel if Bromm were called to testify. Dkt. 28 at
6 5–6. Meyer concluded that the posts would likely be of interest to defense counsel. Id.
7 Meyer further attests that PID letters are issued—and flagged in the office’s case
8 management system—whenever issues are identified, regardless of whether the

9 individual is presently or likely to be a witness in the future. Dkt. 28 at 29. These actions
10 are closely analogous to those in the cases previously discussed and are thus embraced by
11 the protection of prosecutorial immunity. And unlike in Botello, there is no evidence
12 offered that Meyer demanded or pressured the coroner’s office to take employment action
13 against Bromm or demanded that Bromm’s role be limited in any way.

14 Bromm primarily relies on a Sixth Circuit case, Stockdale v. Helper, 979 F.3d 498
15 (6th Cir. 2020), but Helper does not help. In that case, the defendant prosecutor, Helper,
16 sabotaged the employment of two police officers she disliked and who she certainly did
17 not want to see promoted to the role of police chief. Id. at 500-02. Helper communicated
18 her distaste for the officers to the mayor and the city manager. The city manager asked

19 Helper to put these concerns in writing, and it was only in that letter that Helper told the
20 city manager she would be making Brady disclosures in any case in which the officers
21 were involved. The city manager then fired the officers, citing Helper’s letter as the “sole
22 reason” for his decision. The officers sued and Helper invoked prosecutorial immunity,
1 but the Sixth Circuit held it was inapplicable. Of note, the Sixth Circuit held that Helper’s
2 “administrative kibitzing”—referring to her pre-Brady-letter pressure on the mayor and
3 city manager—did not serve a traditional advocacy role, and when combined with the

4 absence of any justification for Brady-listing the officers, Helper’s actions had ventured
5 too far afield from the judicial process. Id. at 503. But again, there is no evidence that
6 Meyer engaged in this kind of pressure campaign, to the contrary, he has testified that he
7 had no further involvement beyond sending the PID letter. Dkt. 28 at 8. All that is
8 supported by the record is that Meyer added Bromm to the PID list and communicated

9 this decision to Coroner McCleod.2
10 Bromm also argues that Meyer’s motion lacked sufficient evidentiary support
11 because Meyer did not include the PID letter or specifically allege that he added Bromm
12 to a PID list (as opposed to just issuing the PID letter). Dkt. 35 at 4-7. Meyer submitted a
13 second declaration with the defendants’ reply, clarifying that Bromm was added to the

14 case management system and including a copy of the PID letter. Dkts. 39, 39–1. Bromm
15 argues that this second declaration and the accompanying exhibit are untimely and must
16 not be considered and asks the Court to strike portions of the second declaration, the
17 exhibit, and a footnote in defendants’ reply brief that cites to those materials. Dkt. 41.
18 This is unnecessary.

19
20
2 Insofar as Stockdale treated a prosecutor’s communication of their decision to Brady-list
21 an individual as less deserving immunity than the underlying decision to Brady-list them, this is
in tension with the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Roe and Botello, which this Court is bound to
22 follow.
1 The first Meyer declaration alleges a standard practice of adding individuals who
2 are issued PID letters to his office’s case management system so that the office will
3 receive alerts when those individuals are involved in future cases. Dkt. 28 at ¶5. Meyer

4 then alleges that Bromm was issued a PID letter, the obvious implication being that he
5 was added to the case management system. Id. at 5-6. Bromm offers no evidence to
6 dispute this. The first Meyer declaration is therefore sufficient, on summary judgment, to
7 support Meyer’s claim that Bromm was added to the case management system without
8 resort to the second declaration. Further, the second declaration merely affirms what is

9 clear from the first declaration when Meyer says “[a]ny time I issue a PID letter to a
10 potential witness, a profile is created in our case management system . . . [t]hat occurred
11 after I issued the PID letter in relation to Mr. Bromm, just like with every other PID letter
12 I issue.” Dkt. 39 at 2. This is hardly new evidence, but even accepting that it is, Bromm
13 offers no explanation for how he would be prejudiced by its consideration other than the

14 conclusory assertion in his surreply that he “has had no opportunity to respond to this
15 new evidence.” Dkt. 41 at 4. Bromm certainly could have used the surreply to respond to
16 that evidence or at least explain why he could not do so within that filing.
17 As for the PID letter, Bromm argues that Meyer failed to establish his entitlement
18 to qualified immunity because he did not produce the letter itself. Dkt. 35 at 5. The Court

19 disagrees. Meyer adequately described the function of PID letters in his declaration, and
20 based on that description, the Court concludes that they are akin to the communications
21 held to be immune in Roe and Botello. Further, Bromm did provide the letter with his
22 response brief, and had an opportunity to argue about its significance, so his complaint
1 about having “no opportunity to respond to this new evidence” is somewhat perplexing.
2 In any case, the letter is now part of the record, and the Court does not see anything in the
3 letter that undermines its conclusion that Meyer is entitled to prosecutorial immunity.

4 Because Meyer’s decision to Brady-list Bromm and issue a PID letter to his
5 employer are entitled to prosecutorial immunity, Bromm’s arguments about the wisdom
6 of that decision—and even the suggestion that it was motivated by animus—are beside
7 the point. See Roe, 109 F.3d at 584 (“a prosecutor’s professional evaluation of a witness
8 is entitled to absolute immunity even if that judgment is harsh, unfair or clouded by

9 personal animus.”) Meyer cannot be held civilly liable for his issuance of the PID letter
10 and the communication of that letter to Bromm’s employer as a matter of law.
11 2. Defendants Meyer, Swope, McCleod, and Snaza are entitled to
qualified immunity
12
The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing
13
discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not
14
violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
15
would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). A two-part test
16
resolves claims of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs have alleged
17
facts that “make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and if so, whether the “right at
18
issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Pearson v.
19
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200-01
20
(2001)).
21
22
1 Qualified immunity protects officials “who act in ways they reasonably believe to
2 be lawful.” Garcia v. County of Merced, 639 F.3d 1206, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting
3 Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987)). The reasonableness inquiry is

4 objective, evaluating whether an official’s actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of
5 the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or
6 motivation. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). Even if an official’s
7 decision is constitutionally deficient, qualified immunity shields her from suit if her
8 misapprehension about the law applicable to the circumstances was reasonable. See

9 Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004). As a privilege from suit, not merely from
10 liability, qualified immunity “gives ample room for mistaken judgments” and protects
11 “all but the plainly incompetent.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 229 (1991) (citing
12 Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986)).
13 Bromm claims that the defendants retaliated against him for engaging in protected

14 First Amendment activities, thereby violating a well-settled constitutional precept; that
15 government officials are prohibited from “using the authority, influence, or leverage
16 available through public office to impose or cause adverse consequences because of
17 protected speech.” Dkt. 35 at 28. This is a true statement as far as it goes, but it frames
18 the question too abstractly. See Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist.,

19 149 F.3d 971, 980 (9th Cir. 1998).
20 When dealing with first amendment retaliation in public employment claims, the
21 question is not whether the right to be free from first amendment retaliation in public
22 employment is clearly established, but “whether the outcome of the Pickering balance so
1 clearly favored [the plaintiff] that it would have been patently unreasonable for the
2 [officials] to conclude that the First Amendment did not protect their speech.” Id.; see
3 also Moran v. Washington, 147 F.3d 839, 845 (9th Cir. 1998). The Ninth Circuit has

4 noted that “the law regarding [claims implicating Pickering] will rarely, if ever, be
5 sufficiently ‘clearly established’ to preclude qualified immunity.” Id. at 847. Bromm’s
6 case is not the exception.
7 Under the Pickering test, the court first considers whether the employee spoke on
8 a matter of public concern. See Moran, 147 F.3d at 846 (citing Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. of

9 Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U.S. 563 (1968)). If so, the court considers
10 whether the government’s interest in promoting the efficient provision of public services
11 outweighs the First Amendment value of the speech in question. Id. The second prong is
12 context-specific, and factors in the nature of the employee’s role, where and when their
13 speech occurred, the nature of the agency’s mission and services, and whether any

14 disruption has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur. On the other side, the Court
15 should consider the relative First Amendment value of the speech—for example, does the
16 speech substantially involve matters of public concern, or is it more akin to an employee
17 grievance? See Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 152 (1983). Is it commentary on a matter
18 within the scope of the employee’s work-related expertise, entitling it to great weight? Or

19 is it expressed in a derogatory manner, entitling it to less weight? See Thompson v. Cent.
20 Valley Sch. Dist. No 365, 163 F.4th 654 (9th Cir. 2025), cert. denied sub nom. Thompson
21 v. Cent. Valley Sch. Dist., No. 25-1281, 2026 WL 1855054 (U.S. June 29, 2026).
22
1 In Pickering, a teacher was fired over a letter he submitted to a local newspaper
2 criticizing school officials on policy matters. The Court held that Pickering’s firing was
3 unconstitutional after weighing “the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting

4 on matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting
5 the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Id. at 568. The
6 Court cautioned that “[b]ecause of the enormous variety of fact situations” in which
7 public employees might be disciplined or terminated for their speech, it would not be
8 “either appropriate or feasible to attempt to lay down a general standard against which all

9 such statements may be judged.” Id. at 569.
10 In Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), the Court revisited the Pickering test,
11 this time upholding the dismissal of a former district attorney, Myers, who had circulated
12 a survey among her coworkers soliciting their thoughts on office policies and personnel,
13 including whether they felt pressured by the office to work in political campaigns. The

14 court held that this last question touched on a matter of public concern, but that Myers
15 had only a limited interest in the speech because the true purpose of the survey was to
16 bolster Myer’s position in an employment dispute with her supervisor, Connick. The
17 Court also noted that Myer’s choice of location and timing for circulating her
18 questionnaire had resulted in disruption to the workplace. Id. at 152. Thus, weighing

19 Myer’s first amendment interests against the risk that her actions “would disrupt the
20 office, undermine [Connick’s] authority, and destroy close working relationships,” the
21 Court held that Myer’s speech was not protected, and her termination was proper. Id. at
22 154.
1 Drawing closer to the facts of this case is Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378
2 (1987). After the attempted assassination of President Reagan in 1981, Arda McPherson,
3 a clerical employee working for the constable’s office in Harris County, Texas, remarked

4 to her coworker, “if they go for him again, I hope they get him.” Id. at 381. Unknown to
5 her, another employee was within earshot and reported the conversation to McPherson’s
6 supervisor, Constable Rankin. Id. at 382. Rankin summoned McPherson, who admitted to
7 having made the statements, and fired her. McPherson brought a § 1983 claim alleging
8 that her firing violated her right to free speech. Id. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that

9 McPherson’s statements were protected, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Applying
10 Pickering and Connick, the Court first inquired whether McPherson’s statement
11 constituted speech on a matter of public concern, concluding that it was because it
12 occurred in the context of a discussion about President Reagan’s policies in the wake of a
13 highly publicized assassination attempt. The Court then asked whether “the interest of the

14 State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs
15 through its employees” outweighed McPherson’s interest in having made the comments.
16 Id. at 388. The Court held that it did not.
17 Although McPherson’s statements were made in the workplace, there was no
18 evidence that they had interfered with the efficient functioning of the office, unlike in

19 Connick. See id. at 388-89. Constable Rankin testified that the possibility of interruption
20 had not been a consideration in his decision to fire McPherson, nor had he inquired
21 whether the remark had caused any disruption. Id. at 389. There also was no evidence
22 that McPherson had discredited the office by making her statement public, or that her
1 statement had been overheard by a member of the public. Id. Considering the non-public,
2 clerical nature of her role and the absence of any disruption to the office’s business or
3 public perception, the Court held that McPherson had been fired simply for the content of

4 her speech and the Constable’s belief that she was “unworthy” of employment in his
5 agency, and that this was unlawful. Id. at 390. The Court explained that “at some point,
6 such concerns are so removed from the effective functioning of the public employer that
7 they cannot prevail over the free speech rights of the public employee.” Id. at 391.
8 However, the Court cautioned that even employees with non-public roles could be

9 terminated for their speech if the facts show it “truly injures the public interest,” such as
10 where a clerical employee for a law enforcement agency goes on television and identifies
11 themselves as both an employee of that office, and a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Id. at
12 n.9 (citing McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936 (11th Cir. 1985)).
13 In addition to how public-facing the employee’s role is, and the context in which

14 their speech occurs, courts consider the nature of the public employer’s business when
15 deciding how much weight to afford their interest in avoiding disruptive speech. For
16 example, the government’s interest in reducing tension and maintaining close working
17 relationships among its staff in the context of higher education, where a vigorous
18 exchange of ideas, and any attendant tension or discomfort, is an accepted part of college

19 life. See Reges v. Cauce, 175 F.4th 1014, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2026). Conversely, courts
20 have recognized a heightened interest in maintaining “discipline, esprit de corps, and
21 uniformity.” Moser v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 984 F.3d 900, 908 (9th Cir. 2021).
22
1 The relevance of the employee’s speech to the scope of their employment, and the
2 language used, are also relevant factors. For example, the value of government
3 employees’ speech on matters relating to the agency or field in which they work has been

4 considered the “apex” of First Amendment protection, such as when teachers speak out
5 on issues in the field of education. Thompson, 163 F.4th 654 (9th Cir. 2025). Conversely,
6 derogatory speech will be accorded less weight in the Pickering balance. Id. In
7 Thompson, an assistant principal was placed on leave and then demoted for comments he
8 made on Facebook, namely his reaction to the Democratic National Convention, in which

9 he referred to Democrats as “demtards” and suggesting that “the rest of us are sick and
10 tired of your act and going to take you to the woodshed for a proper education.” Id. at
11 664-65. The court concluded that Thompson’s post could be construed as commentary on
12 a matter of public concern, but that it was “not speech entitled to the highest
13 constitutional protection” due to the disparaging and violent language used. Id.; see also

14 MacRae v. Mattos, 106 F.4th 122 (1st Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2617 (2025)
15 (plaintiff’s posts about transgender individuals and immigrants were on a matter of public
16 concern but were entitled to less weigh considering the “mocking, derogatory, and
17 disparaging manner” in which they were conveyed).
18 Finally, as Rankin made clear, there must be evidence that the speech in question

19 had or will disrupt the employer’s operations. A government employer may rely on
20 reasonable predictions of future disruption, even if none has yet occurred, but it must
21 “provide some evidence for the court to evaluate whether the government’s claims of
22 disruption appear reasonable.” Moser, 984 F.3d at 909. Courts are more likely to accept a
1 government’s employer’s prediction of future disruption if some disruption has already
2 occurred. Id.
3 The question now before the Court is whether, in September 2025, it was so

4 “clearly established” that Bromm’s interest in sharing memes about the slaying of Charlie
5 Kirk outweighed the County’s interests in maintaining the efficiency and public
6 confidence that it would be unreasonable for the defendants to think otherwise. The Court
7 concludes that Bromm has satisfied the first prong of the Pickering test. Viewed in the
8 light most favorable to Bromm, his social media posts constituted commentary on a

9 matter of public concern, namely the assassination of a prominent media figure, and by
10 extension, the views he espoused. See Rankin, 483 U.S. at 387 (“The inappropriate or
11 controversial character of a statement is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a
12 matter of public concern.”). Bromm asserts he was pushing back against what he viewed
13 as the undeserved lionization of Charlie Kirk. See Bromm Decl., Dkt. 36 at 2 (“With my

14 background in the civil rights movement, I was really opposed to how people were
15 viewing [Kirk] as a civil rights hero . . . I was pushing back on a false narrative about
16 Charlie Kirk that made me upset.”). However, the “‘public concern’ prong is a necessary,
17 but not a sufficient, condition of constitutional protection.” Brewster, 149 F.3d at 979.
18 The second prong is whether it was sufficiently clear to the defendants, at the time

19 of their conduct, that their asserted interests in avoiding disruption to their agencies’
20 operations would be outweighed by Bromm’s interest in making these posts. See Moran,
21 147 F.3d at 845.
22
1 McCleod argue that Bromm’s posts caused disruption to the operations of the
2 coroner’s office, threatened to undermine investigations, and brought the coroner’s office
3 into disrepute. He has supplied some evidence to that effect. For example, McCleod

4 testifies that he received “multiple calls and emails from citizens complaining about Mr.
5 Bromm’s posts.” Dkt. 27. There is also some evidence that Bromm’s posts threatened the
6 working relationship between the coroner’s office and its partner agencies. Id. at 26-27
7 (recounting issuance of PID letter and subsequent communications requesting that
8 Bromm’s role in investigations be limited). Bromm argues that this disruption was not

9 “widespread or sustained,” or that it was self-inflicted because the defendants amplified
10 the reach of Bromm’s posts, Dkt. 35 at 18–19, but these are ultimately arguments about
11 how much weight to give the defendants’ interests in the balancing test. This is not a case
12 where the government has offered no evidence demonstrating actual or reasonably
13 anticipated disruption such that the defendants’ hopes of prevailing under Pickering

14 would have been doomed from the start.
15 Further, given the public-facing nature of the coroner’s office (and of Bromm’s
16 role specifically) and the public nature of his comments, the court concludes that it was at
17 least reasonably non-speculative to anticipate that Bromm’s statements would cause
18 disruption in the future. Although the coroner’s office is not a law enforcement agency, it

19 frequently works alongside law enforcement, and it does occupy a “unique and sensitive
20 position” having “necessary and constant interactions with the public.” Dible v. City of
21 Chandler, 515 F.3d 918, 929 (9th Cir. 2008). Bromm’s work for the coroner’s office was
22 also public-facing, requiring him to interface both with the public and with other
1 agencies. McCleod Decl., Dkt. 27 at 4-5. Bromm does not deny this. Bromm’s Facebook
2 profile also identified him as an employee of the Coroner’s office at the time he made the
3 post,3 and his posts were quickly made public, if indeed they could ever be considered

4 private.4
5 The defendants also argue, and the Court agrees, that Bromm’s posts are entitled
6 to less weight in the Pickering analysis due to their disparaging tone. Some of the posts
7 were memes that Bromm shared, including one with what appears to a photo of the
8 vocalist for the rock band Filter singing with the text “HEYYYYY Man, Nice Shot!”5

9 paired with an image of Charlie Kirk’s suspected killer. Dkt. 1 at 3; Dkt. 30–1. Another
10 combined an image of Charlie Kirk with another photo of the spray-painted words “Make
11 Racists Afraid Again” and the outline of a balaclava. Id. And a third shows the text
12 “FA+FO=” followed by a picture of Charlie Kirk bleeding from his neck. Dkt. 30–1. The
13 defendants interpret this as a shorthand for the phrase “fuck around and find out,” and

14 Bromm does not dispute this. Dkt. 29 at ¶7. The defendants also point to a post in which
15

16 3 See Dkt. 36 at 2 (“I [Bromm] removed my job affiliation before Sean Swope posted
about me and my employment.”); Swope Decl., Dkt. 30 at 3 (“I reviewed Mr. Bromm’s public
17 Facebook account and saw several things that clearly identified him as a Lewis County
employee. First, in this profile he identified himself as an employee of Lewis County. Second,
18 his profile photo showed him in a Lewis County Coroner’s Office shirt.”)
4 Bromm asserts that McCleod, as his Facebook friend, had “access to and visibility into
19 Plaintiff’s Facebook posts,” Dkt. 1 at 17 but does not claim that only friends could view his
posts. The fact that State Senator McEntire—who Bromm does not allege was a connection on
20 Facebook—was able to share his post suggests that it was public. In any case, the post did
become public, and the court cannot conclude that the risk of this happening was unexpected,
21 unlike a private verbal communique made where there is no risk of the public overhearing. See
Rankin, 483 U.S. at 389.
22 5 The band Filter released the song “Hey Man Nice Shot” in 1995.
1 Bromm wrote “I have said it b4- Violence is never the answer but it is part of the
2 equation to get to the answer.” Dkt. 30–2. Although Bromm disputes the defendants’
3 characterization of his subjective mindset when sharing these posts, he does not dispute

4 the content of the posts, which are plainly mocking and violent in tone. As such,
5 Bromm’s posts are entitled to less weight in the Pickering analysis.
6 On these facts, the Court cannot conclude that McCleod’s decision to terminate
7 Bromm violated clearly established law. This conclusion is further supported by the
8 authority cited in the defendants’ motion, MacRae, 106 F.4th 122 and Hussey v. City of

9 Cambridge, 149 F.4th 57 (1st Cir. 2025), reh’g en banc granted, opinion withdrawn, 165
10 F.4th 638 (1st Cir. 2026).
11 In MacRae, the First Circuit held it was permissible for a school district to fire a
12 teacher who shared social media posts that were derogatory toward transgender
13 individuals and immigrants because it posed a reasonable—if not yet realized—threat of

14 disruption to the classroom environment. And in Hussey the court held that a police
15 officer could be disciplined over social media posts he made disparaging George Floyd
16 because it was reasonable to believe they posed a threat to the department’s relationship
17 of trust with the public.6 These cases are instructive, particularly because they both held
18 in the government’s favor on the merits of the Pickering analysis. As noted, the inquiry

19 for purpose of qualified immunity is not whether the government’s anticipation of
20
6 The First Circuit subsequently granted rehearing en banc but has not yet issued a new
21 opinion. In any case, this opinion was in force during the time in which Bromm’s speech and
resulting termination occurred, and it is therefore relevant to understanding what a reasonable
22 individual would have understood to be permissible under the law at the time.
1 disruption was reasonable, but whether it was “patently unreasonable,” a more lenient
2 standard than the one under which the defendants prevailed in MacRae and Hussey.
3 Turning briefly to the remaining defendants, the court is likewise unpersuaded that

4 their conduct violated clearly established law. The Court has already concluded that
5 Meyer’s actions are entitled to prosecutorial immunity, and a fortiori, would be at least
6 entitled to qualified immunity. It is also far from clear that Sheriff Snaza’s decision to
7 restrict Bromm’s role in investigations involving homicides or suspicious deaths in
8 response to Bromm’s posts and his inclusion on the PID list was a violation of clearly

9 established law. Dkt. 29 at 3–4. Lastly, Bromm offers no authority to support the
10 contention that Swope violated clearly established law by resharing his post, drawing
11 others’ attention to it, or even suggesting that others contact his employer, an elected
12 official, if they had concerns. On the contrary, it is doubtful that Swope could be held
13 liable for that conduct consistent with the First Amendment. Further, although the

14 defendants did at various times recognize Bromm’s First Amendment rights in broad
15 terms,7 their statements cannot be interpreted as an admission that firing Bromm would
16 clearly violate his rights under the delicate Pickering analysis, which is a legal question
17 for the Court to resolve.
18

19
20
21
7 Dkt. 35 at 30 (citing Swope Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. C; Snaza Decl. Ex. A; Lunde Decl.
22 ¶ 15, Ex. H; Lunde Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. G).
1 Defendants McCleod, Swope, Snaza, and Meyer are entitled to qualified
2 immunity. Their summary judgment motion is GRANTED, and Bromm’s First
3 Amendment conspiracy claims against them are DISMISSED.

4 3. Bromm’s state law doxing claim against defendant Swope fails as a
matter of law
5
Bromm’s final claim arises under RCW 4.24.792 – unauthorized publication of
6
personal identifying information (the “doxing” statute). The doxing statute prohibits the
7
unauthorized publication of “personal identifying information” either with intent or
8
knowledge that the information will be used to harm the individual whose information it
9
is, or with reckless disregard for the risk that the information will be used to harm them.
10
“Personal identifying information” is defined as:
11
any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual’s
12 identity, including without limitation name, prior legal name, alias, mother's
maiden name, or date or place of birth, in combination with any other
13 information that is linked or linkable to an individual such as:

14 (i) Social security number, home address, mailing address, phone
number, email address, social media accounts, or biometric data;
15 (ii) Medical, financial, education, consumer, or employment information,
data, or records;
16 (iii) Any other sensitive private information that is linked or linkable to a
specific identifiable individual, such as gender identity, sexual
17 orientation, or any sexually intimate visual depiction; or
(iv) Any information, including without limitation usernames and
18 passwords, that enables access to a person's email accounts, social
media accounts, electronic forum accounts, chat or instant message
19 accounts, cloud storage accounts, banking or financial accounts,
computer networks, computers or phones, teleconferencing services,
20 video-teleconferencing services, or other digital meeting rooms.

21 RCW 4.24.792(h). An individual whose information has been shared in violation of the
22 doxing statute has a state law cause of action against the individual or individuals who
1 shared the information. However, the prohibition does not apply to “providing personal
2 identifying information in connection with an exercise of the right of freedom of speech
3 or of the press.” RCW 4.24.472(2)(b).

4 Bromm alleges that Swope doxed him by identifying him as an employee with the
5 Lewis County Coroner’s office (after Bromm had removed that information from his
6 profile) and sharing his employer, Coroner McCleod’s email address. Dkt. 1 at 67–69.
7 Swope does not challenge Bromm’s claim on its elements but instead argues that he had
8 his own First Amendment right to make his post, making it exempt under RCW

9 4.24.472(2)(b). The Court agrees. Having concluded that Bromm’s original post touched
10 on a matter of public concern, it only makes sense that Swope’s responses would be
11 accorded the same treatment. Just as Bromm had an interest in sharing his memes, so too
12 did Swope have an interest in criticizing him, and in communicating that criticism to his
13 constituents. Indeed, Bromm acknowledges that the posts “contained political

14 commentary,” but he nonetheless argues that “Swope’s First Amendment argument
15 addresses only his initial publication and does not answer the evidence that he later
16 pinned the post to the top of his Facebook page.” Dkt. 35 at 42. But Bromm does not
17 explain why a social media post qualifying for First Amendment protection would lose
18 that protection based on how prominently displayed it is.

19 Even construing the facts in the light most favorable to Bromm, Swope’s
20 Facebook post was an exercise of his First Amendment rights and therefore did not
21 violate RCW 4.24.472 as a matter of law. Bromm’s state law doxing claim is
22 DISMISSED.
1 4. Attorney’s fees
2 The defendants ask the Court to award them attorney’s fees, arguing that Bromm’s
3 claims against them were “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” Per 42 U.S.C.

4 §1988, the Court may award the prevailing party—in this case, Meyer, Snaza, McCleod,
5 and Swope—reasonable attorney’s fees as part of their costs in defending against an
6 action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983, but only when the plaintiff’s action is “frivolous,
7 unreasonable, or without foundation.” Citizens for Free Speech, LLC v. Cnty. of Alameda,
8 953 F.3d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation modified). The defendants argue that existing

9 authority strongly supported their arguments that Meyer’s conduct was shieled by
10 prosecutorial immunity, and that all defendants’ conduct would be covered by at least
11 qualified immunity. The Court is obviously persuaded by their arguments on the merits of
12 those defenses, but this does not mean Bromm’s arguments were frivolous.
13 The Court does not find that Bromm’s claims against the individual defendants

14 frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. The defendants request for attorney’s fees
15 is DENIED.
16 III. ORDER
17 The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Swope, Snaza, Meyer, and
18 McCleod, Dkt. 26, is GRANTED. The defendants’ request for attorney’s fees is

19 DENIED.
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21 //
22 //
1 Dated this 14th day of September, 2026.
A
2
3
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
4
United States District Judge

5

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11441443. Public record. Not legal advice.