Block v. Snohomish Cnty.

Decision Date15 February 2019
Docket NumberCASE NO. C18-1048-RAJ
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
PartiesANNE BLOCK, Plaintiff, v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Shannon Ragonesi, Amanda Butler and Keating, Buckling and McCormick (collectively, the "KBM Defendants"), and Defendants Snohomish County and Commissioner Jacalyn Brudvik (collectively, the "Snohomish County Defendants"). Dkt. ## 12, 19. The Court also considers Plaintiff Anne Block's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. # 21), several motions included in Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. ## 16, 22), Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Supplemental Authorities, and Plaintiff's Surreply, which contains a Motion to Strike. Dkt. ## 25, 27.

For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. # 21), GRANTS Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. ## 12, 19), and DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against these Defendants WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DENIES all of Plaintiff's other outstanding motions. Dkt. ## 22, 25, 27. Moreover, the Court also ORDERS the Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE, within fourteen (14) days of this Order, why this case should not also be dismissed as to Defendant Pat McMahon. Finally, because Plaintiff requested disqualification, the Court refers this Order to Chief Judge Ricardo S. Martinez for further review.

II. BACKGROUND
A. Ms. Block's Litigation History

The saga of legal proceedings connected with this, and other cases filed by Plaintiff, is extensive. The Court will not devote an inordinate amount of time recounting the long history of Plaintiff's legal conquest against the City of Gold Bar, Snohomish County, and the court systems in the State of Washington. Those facts are set forth in great details in orders from Plaintiff's previous cases before this Court. However, a brief summary of Plaintiff's litigation history before this Court is necessary to view Plaintiff's Complaint in the proper context.

Generally, Plaintiff's claims all stem from ongoing disputes with the City of Gold Bar and Snohomish County that started with the entities' responsiveness to Plaintiff's Public Records Act requests. The first case, Anne Block v. City of Gold Bar, Case No. C14-cv-00235-RAJ, involved claims against the City of Gold Bar, Snohomish County, and current and past municipal employees and officials, alleging a conspiracy to violate her rights. This Court granted the Defendants' initial motion to dismiss but granted leave to amend. Dkt. # 61, Block v. City of Gold Bar, Case No. C14-cv-00235-RAJ. After Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the Defendants again moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which this Court granted, dismissing Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. Id., Dkt # 89. On January 5, 2016, this Court went on to grant Defendants' motion for anaward of attorney's fees finding: (1) Plaintiff's claims to be "entirely groundless and frivolous"; (2) Plaintiff vexatiously pursued this litigation in bad faith; and, (3) that Plaintiff "continued much of her abusive conduct even after the Court specifically forbade Plaintiff from doing so." Id., Dkt. # 107 at 4-6.

Judge Martinez presided over the second case, Block v. Washington State Bar Association et al., 2:15-cv-2018-RSM. In that case, Plaintiff filed a complaint naming 56 different Defendants including the City of Gold Bar, Snohomish County, current and former city and county employees and officials, and the attorneys who had represented the municipal defendants and their employees in prior lawsuits filed by Plaintiff, again alleging a widespread RICO conspiracy to violate her rights. Id. at Dkt. # 1. Judge Martinez granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice and without leave to amend. Id. at Dkt. ## 84, 122. In dismissing Plaintiff's claims, Judge Martinez noted that "considering Plaintiff's litigation history in this and other courts, and viewing the record in this case as a whole, it is clear to the Court that Plaintiff has engaged in this litigation vexatiously and as a means of harassment of the Defendants, and not merely to seek justice for her alleged injuries." Id., Dkt. # 122 at 21. Judge Martinez's Order echoed some of specific instances of objectionable behaviors from Plaintiff that this Court recognized in its previous Order, such as (1) referring to Defendant's attorneys as "pieces of shit"; (2) responding to defense motions by threatening to bring more lawsuits; and (3) stating in open court that if the court ruled in favor of her opponents that she would file a lawsuit against them every week. Id. at 23-24. Accordingly, Judge Martinez also entered a Bar Order imposing prefiling restrictions on any pro se case filed by Ms. Block in the Western District of Washington. Id. at 25-26. Under these restrictions, Plaintiff must show good cause permitting such action, setting forth the viability of every claim in light of her previous litigations; if Plaintiff does not make such a filing, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's action sua sponte and may impose sanctions. Id.

On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff "inexplicably" filed another lawsuit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Washington State Bar Association and 29 other Washington defendants associated with her legal actions; the case was quickly transferred to this Court. See Dkt. ## 1, 4, Block v. Washington State Bar Association et al., 2:18-cv-907-RSM. Judge Martinez determined that the Bar Order applied to Plaintiff's suit and dismissed Plaintiff's complaint. Id. at Dkt. # 62.

On June 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed the present case in Snohomish County Superior Court, which was subsequently removed to this Court. Dkt. # 1-1. A few days later, on July 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed an action in Pierce County Superior Court, naming King County Superior Court, King County, King County Superior Court Judges Michael Scott, Julie Spector, Laura Inveen, and Beth Andrus, defense counsel for the City of Gold Bar, and the Mayor of Gold Bar as Defendants. Block v. King County Superior Court, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-05579-BHS. That case, which argued claims similar to Plaintiff's Complaint in this case, was also removed from a Washington Superior Court. Id. at Dkt. # 1. On September 29, 2018, Judge Settle granted the Gold Bar Defendants' motion to dismiss, and on January 14, 2019 the King County Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff's claims were barred by litigation and judicial immunity. See Dkt. ## 20, 30, Block v. King County Superior Court, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-05579-BHS.1

B. Allegations of Ms. Block's Complaint

Plaintiff's Complaint is, to put it mildly, difficult to decipher. It is confusingly organized with paragraph numberings that make little sense, rife with conclusory and inflammatory accusations, and is full of vague claims that resemble twisted versions ofactual legal standards. Nevertheless, the Court endeavors to discern what claims can be reasonably extracted from Plaintiff's filing.

The basis for Plaintiff's Complaint appears to be another event in the long-running litigation against the City of Gold Bar in the Snohomish County Superior Court, Cause No. 15-2-06148-6. According to Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendants Snohomish County and Snohomish County Superior Court Commissioner Jacalyn Brudvik violated her rights under federal and state laws by granting her request to continue a hearing for a motion for sanctions filed by the City of Gold Bar. Dkt. # 1-1 at pp. 4-13. The order in question, dated June 1, 2018, was granted after Plaintiff requested accommodation under Washington GR 33, claiming she was unable to hear, walk, or drive safely because of an ear infection. Id. at pp. 4-8. Plaintiff contends that Commissioner Brudvik violated her rights by requiring her to provide written documentation of the medical issue that Ms. Block relied upon in requesting the continuance. Id. at p. 8, ¶¶ 3.90-3.91.2 Plaintiff also faults Commissioner Brudvik for allegedly holding an "ex parte" hearing on Plaintiff's motion, and for setting the new hearing date for June 15, 2018, instead of June 7, 2018. Id. at ¶¶ 3.94-3.98. Against the Snohomish County Defendants, Plaintiff requests injunctive relief "and/or a writ of certiorari and prohibition" to the Snohomish County Superior Court to vacate and enjoin Commissioner Brudvik's order, as well as declaratory relief that Commissioner Brudvik "is in violation of state and federal constitutional and state privacy laws." Id. at ¶¶ 9.1-9.6.

In addition to Snohomish County and Commissioner Brudvik, Plaintiff also named as Defendants in this action the lawyers representing the City of Gold Bar in the underlying Snohomish County action: Shannon Ragonesi, Amanda Butler and their law firm Keating, Buckling and McCormick. Plaintiff argues that the KBM Defendantsviolated her rights under state and federal law by filing the underlying motion for sanctions against her in the Snohomish County lawsuit. Id. at 11, ¶ 3.12. Against the KBM Defendants, Plaintiff claims violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Dkt. # 1-1 at ¶¶ 1.13 3.12. Plaintiff also asserts state law claims of barratry, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and deceptive trade violations. Id. at 14-19. Plaintiff also seeks Declaratory Judgment under RCW 7.24 declaring that the KBM Defendants' actions violated her rights, and for a reference to the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division for "appropriate criminal prosecution." Dkt. # 1-1 at 13, 16-18.

On July 25, 2018, the KBM Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 12. On August 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a response,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT