From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Block v. King Cnty. Superior Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Sep 28, 2018
CASE NO. C18-5579 BHS (W.D. Wash. Sep. 28, 2018)

Opinion

CASE NO. C18-5579 BHS

09-28-2018

ANNE K. BLOCK, Plaintiff, v. KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

This matter comes before the Court on the motion to dismiss by Defendants Amanda Butler, William Clem, Disend, PLLC, Keating Bucklin, McCormack, Inc., Shannon Ragonesi, and Ann Marie Soto ("Defendants") (Dkt. 14); and Plaintiff Anne Block's ("Block") motion for an extension of time (Dkt. 17). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby rules as follows:

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 2, 2018, Block filed a complaint against numerous defendants in Pierce County Superior Court for the State of Washington. Dkt. 1-1. Block asserts claims for violations of "the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and 14th Amendment, in order to obstruct the due course of justice in pending suits involving Plaintiff, and future rights to access public records and file suits seeking relief under RCW 42.56." Id. ¶ 1.1.

On July 18, 2018, Defendants removed the matter to this Court. Dkt. 1.

On July 25, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss. Dkt. 14. On August 14, 2018, Block filed a motion for extension of time and responded. Dkts. 17, 18. On August 15, 2018, Defendants replied. Dkt. 19.

The Court grants the motion for an extension of time based on Block's alleged difficulties with the Court's electronic filing system. --------

II. DISCUSSION

Motions to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under such a theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Material allegations are taken as admitted and the complaint is construed in the plaintiff's favor. Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d 1295, 1301 (9th Cir. 1983). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint does not require detailed factual allegations but must provide the grounds for entitlement to relief and not merely a "formulaic recitation" of the elements of a cause of action. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Plaintiffs must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974.

In this case, Defendants argue that Block's claims against them should be dismissed as a matter of law because they are entitled to absolute immunity. Dkt. 14 at 6-8. The Court agrees, and Block offers no plausible argument to the contrary. Instead, Block argues, without citation, that the Washington constitution does not allow for absolute immunity. Dkt. 18 at 8. Block offers no authority for this proposition and fails to present a plausible argument to extend any other authority to limit the privilege of absolute immunity. Thus, the Court rejects this argument.

Next, Block asserts that absolute immunity does not bar claims for abuse of process. Dkt. 18 at 8. Again, she fails to cite any authority for this proposition. Thus, the Court rejects the argument.

Finally, Block cites a number of federal cases for the proposition that absolute immunity does not apply to federal claims for an abuse of process or acting without probable cause. Dkt. 18 at 9-11. None of these authorities stand for the proposition she claims they stand for, and she fails to offer any plausible argument for a reasonable extension of the law. Therefore, the Court rejects all of Block's arguments against the application of absolute immunity. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants absolute immunity against Block's claims.

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 14) and Block's motion for an extension of time (Dkt. 17) are GRANTED. The Clerk shall terminate Defendants.

Dated this 28th day of September, 2018.

/s/_________

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Block v. King Cnty. Superior Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Sep 28, 2018
CASE NO. C18-5579 BHS (W.D. Wash. Sep. 28, 2018)
Case details for

Block v. King Cnty. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:ANNE K. BLOCK, Plaintiff, v. KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Sep 28, 2018

Citations

CASE NO. C18-5579 BHS (W.D. Wash. Sep. 28, 2018)