Segaline v. State
| Decision Date | 17 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 76010-6-I,76010-6-I |
| Citation | 400 P.3d 1281,199 Wash.App. 748 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Michael SEGALINE, a single person, Respondent, v. The STATE of Washington, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES and Alan Croft, Appellants. |
Patricia D. Todd, Office of the Attorney General, P.O. Box 40126, Olympia, WA, 98504-0126, for Appellants.
Jean Marie Schiedler-Brown, Attorney at Law, 606 Post Ave., Ste. 103, Seattle, WA, 98104-1445, for Respondent.
Schindler, J.¶1 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields a government official from civil liability and money damages unless the plaintiff shows violation of a constitutional right that is clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries and Regional Safety and Health Coordinator William Alan Croft appeal the jury verdict in favor of Michael Segaline on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Croft.1 The Department of Labor and Industries and Croft contend the court erred by denying the motion for judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity and instructing the jury to decide the legal question of due process. Because Segaline did not show that Croft violated a clearly established right when he issued a trespass notice in 2003, the court erred in denying judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity and dismissal of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. We reverse the jury verdict on the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and remand to vacate the judgment and award of attorney fees.
FACTS
¶2 The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L & I) is responsible for issuing permits for electrical work. In 2003, William Alan Croft worked as the L & I Regional Safety and Health Coordinator for the East Wenatchee office. The L & I Regional Safety and Health Coordinator is responsible for "safety, health, security, ergonomics, [and] emergency management."
¶3 Michael Segaline is a licensed electrician and the owner of an electrical contracting company located in East Wenatchee, Horizon Electric Inc. Segaline routinely obtained electrical permits at the L & I East Wenatchee office.
¶4 In June 2003, L & I Field Service Coordinator Jeanne Guthrie and L & I Customer Service Representative Jacqueline Sanchez filed "Safety & Health Security Incident Reports" about Segaline's threatening and harassing behavior.
¶5 Guthrie filed an incident report about Segaline's behavior on June 9. Guthrie said Segaline called her on June 9 about a "bogus" contractor deposit account. According to Guthrie, Segaline threatened to "bring a tape recorder in and start legal proceedings" and said a "lot of people would be behind bars." Guthrie describes the statements Segaline made as a "[t]hreat."
¶6 Sanchez filed an incident report about Segaline's behavior on June 13. Sanchez said Segaline wanted to pay for an electrical permit. When she told Segaline the permit "had already been paid," Segaline told her that was "not 'his problem, it was L & I's problem,' " and L & I "could not refuse to take his money because it was in the RCW's." Sanchez states Segaline was "very mean and demeaning" and appeared "very frustrated and very red in the face and just very, very upset with me." Sanchez states she is "afraid to help him at the counter as to what he might do or say to me." Sanchez describes Segaline's behavior as "[h]arassment."
¶7 Guthrie also filed an incident report about Segaline's behavior on June 13. When Segaline attempted to pay for an electrical permit, Guthrie said she "could not take more money" because he had already paid. Segaline told Guthrie she "could not refuse to take the money." According to Guthrie, Segaline accused her of "not following the RCWs" and said he "would file a tort claim." Guthrie describes Segaline's behavior as "[h]arassment."
¶8 According to L & I employee Alice Hawkins, on June 9 and June 13, Segaline was "quite threatening in his verbal language, very aggressive and threatening and intimidating, red faced." Hawkins said Segaline "yell[ed]" and told her "one of us is going to go to jail, that I better get an attorney."
¶9 On June 19, L & I Electrical Program Supervisor David Whittle and Croft met with Segaline about the reported incidents. Segaline abruptly left the meeting and demanded to speak to Guthrie. Croft called the police and told Segaline to leave the office. Croft said Segaline appeared "like a balloon that was waiting to pop" with "a real rage going on underneath." Segaline left when the police arrived. One of the police officers suggested Croft draft a trespass notice for the police to "enforce in the future."
¶10 Croft had never issued a trespass notice before and was uncertain whether he could do so for a state agency office. The "primary" reason Croft wanted to issue a trespass notice was to protect "the safety of our staff." Croft contacted the Wenatchee Police Department Crime Prevention Unit and the Washington State Patrol trooper assigned to assist L & I with workplace violence about the procedure for issuing a trespass notice. Croft also asked the trooper to obtain an opinion from the Washington State Attorney General's Office. In addition, Croft reviewed the Revised Code of Washington provisions on trespass and the "workplace violence policy."
¶11 Croft drafted a "Trespass Notice." The Notice states Segaline engaged in "disruptive behavior" and "harassment of staff" and he is not "permitted, invited, licensed or otherwise privileged to enter or remain at the [East Wenatchee office]." The Notice states Segaline can "have this notice terminated" by obtaining the written approval of Whittle. The Trespass Notice provides, in pertinent part:
¶12 Hawkins handed Segaline the Trespass Notice on June 30. When Segaline refused to accept the Notice, an L & I employee called the police. After a police officer handed Segaline a copy of the Trespass Notice, Segaline left the L & I office.
¶13 On August 20, Segaline called Guthrie and "yelled" at her about an "emergency permit." The next day, Segaline went to the office and an L & I employee handed him the permit. When Segaline went to the office again on August 22, an L & I employee called the police. The police arrested Segaline. The city of Wenatchee (City) charged Segaline with criminal trespass. The City later dismissed the criminal trespass charge.
¶14 On August 8, 2005, Segaline filed a lawsuit against the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (Department). The lawsuit alleged (1) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) malicious prosecution, (4) negligent supervision, and (5) violation of his civil rights.
¶15 A year later on August 3, 2006, Segaline filed a motion to amend the complaint to name Croft as a defendant and assert a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Croft alleging violation of his liberty interest to be present in a public place without due process. The court granted the motion to amend.
¶16 The Department filed a motion for summary judgment dismissal of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Croft. The court ruled the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The court also ruled, "Croft is entitled to summary judgment in that he did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights, and Croft is entitled to qualified immunity from suit."
¶17 The Department filed a motion for summary judgment dismissal of the claims alleging intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision, and malicious prosecution. The trial court ruled the Department was immune from suit under a statute that protects a person from liability for communicating a complaint to a government agency, RCW 4.24.510. We affirmed dismissal of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Croft and the claims against the Department. Segaline v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. , 144 Wash. App. 312, 317, 182 P.3d 480 (2008). The Washington Supreme Court granted review. Segaline v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. , 165 Wash.2d 1044, 205 P.3d 132 (2009).
¶18 The Supreme Court held that because RCW 4.24.510 did not apply to a government agency, the Department was not immune from suit. The court reversed summary judgment dismissal of the claims against the Department alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision, and malicious prosecution. Segaline v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. , 169 Wash.2d 467, 479, 238 P.3d 1107 (2010).2 The court affirmed dismissal of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Croft as barred by the statute of limitations. Segaline , 169 Wash.2d at 479, 238 P.3d 1107. In a footnote, the court declined to address for the first time on appeal Segaline's argument that the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim was "timely under the continuing violation doctrine." Segaline , 169 Wash.2d at 476 n.8, 238 P.3d 1107.
¶19 On remand, Segaline argued the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Croft was not barred by the statute of limitations on a continuing violation theory. In a letter ruling, the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial