Shavlik v. Snohomish Cnty. Superior Court

Decision Date21 December 2018
Docket NumberCASE NO. C18-1094JLR
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
PartiesLORI D. SHAVLIK, Plaintiff, v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO REMAND
I. INTRODUCTION

Before the court is Defendants Snohomish County ("the County"), Snohomish County Superior Court ("the Superior Court"), Judge Bruce Weiss, Andrew E. Alsdorf, Craig S. Matheson, Philip G. Sayles, and the Sayles Law Firm, PLLC's (collectively, "Defendants") joint motion to dismiss or grant judgment on the pleadings on pro se Plaintiff Lori D. Shavlik's claims, with the exception of her claim under Washington State's Public Records Act ("PRA"), RCW ch. 42.56. (Mot. (Dkt. # 12).) Additionally, the County moves to remand Ms. Shavlik's PRA claim to state court. (Id.) Ms. Shavlik opposes Defendants' motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 15).) Defendants filed a reply. (Reply (Dkt. # 16).) The court has considered the motion, the parties' submissions concerning the motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised,1 the court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss all of Ms. Shavlik's claims except for her PRA claim. As set forth below, the court GRANTS Ms. Shavlik leave to amend certain claims within 15 days of the date of this order. Finally, the court GRANTS the County's motion to remand Ms. Shavlik's PRA claim.

II. BACKGROUND

Ms. Shavlik's claims arise from two events: PRA requests she filed with the County in September 2015 and a murder trial she observed in the Superior Court in May 2018. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 6-1).)

1. PRA Claims Against Snohomish County

On September 13, 2015, Ms. Shavlik filed seven PRA requests with the County. (Compl. at 4-7.2) She filed an eighth PRA request on November 10, 2015. (Id. at 7-8.) Most of Ms. Shavlik's PRA requests sought emails pertaining to herself and other individuals. (Id. at 4-8.) Ms. Shavlik alleges that the County delayed her requests without cause, failed to adequately search for the requested records, and closed her requests without notice, in violation of the PRA. (Id. at 8.)

2. Claims Against Judge Weiss

The remainder of Ms. Shavlik's claims relate to the criminal prosecution of John Reed in the Superior Court ("the Reed trial"). Ms. Shavlik states that in March 2017, she "began her career as an investigative reporter/blogger, specifically covering Washington State [c]ourt proceedings." (Id.) In May 2018, Ms. Shavlik intended to cover the Reed trial "as a member of the press." (Id. at 9.)

During the trial, Ms. Shavlik sought permission from Judge Weiss, the judge presiding over the Reed trial, to film the proceedings. (Id. at 10.) Ms. Shavlik alleges that on May 17, 2018, Judge Weiss "officially gave [her] permission to videotape" the trial. (Id.) Ms. Shavlik further alleges that, the next day, Judge Weiss revoked her permission to film the trial and entered an order allowing only King 5, a local news outlet, to record or photograph the proceedings. (Id.) Ms. Shavlik states that on the afternoon of May 18, 2018, after King 5 personnel left Judge Weiss's courtroom, she began filming the trial. (Id. at 12.)

On May 31, 2018, Judge Weiss entered an order to show cause why Ms. Shavlik should not be held in contempt for filming the Reed trial. (OSC (Dkt. # 12-1) at 1.) In the show-cause order, Judge Weiss stated that he ruled at the beginning of the trial that "only one media outlet would be allowed to record the proceedings during the trial"; that he "ordered Ms. Shavlik not to record or photograph the proceedings as she could not provide a feed to other media personnel"; and that he found "good and sufficient reason for [Ms. Shavlik] to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for violating the Court's Order regarding filming and photographing the trial." (OSC at 1-2.) JudgeWeiss ordered Ms. Shavlik to appear at a show-cause hearing on June 13, 2018. (Id. at 2.) Ms. Shavlik did not appear at the hearing.3 (Compl. at 13.)

Ms. Shavlik asserts state and federal claims against Judge Weiss related to the show-cause order and hearing. She alleges that Judge Weiss violated her rights under the First, Sixth, and Fourteen Amendments. (Id. at 13.) She also claims that Judge Weiss violated Washington Court General Rule 16, which governs video recording by the news media during state court proceedings, and her right to privacy under Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. (Id. at 11, 13); see also Wash. Ct. Rules, GR 16. Finally, Ms. Shavlik alleges that Judge Weiss violated RCW 5.68.010, which prohibits a court from compelling a member of the media to disclose sources and work product, except in limited circumstances. (Id. at 13); see also RCW 5.68.010.

Ms. Shavlik seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Judge Weiss. (Compl. at 1, 17, 19.) She requests "an injunction . . . to vacate and enjoin any [o]rder entered in violation of [her] rights" under state and federal law. (Id. at 21.) She further seeks a "declaratory ruling . . . that Judge Bruce Weiss violated [her] right to be left alone in private affairs, right to not be threatened as a result of engaging in First Amendment [activities], right to [a] meaningful opportunity to be heard in violation of the 14th Amendment, [and] 6th Amendment right to counsel." (Id. at 20-21.)

//

//

3. Claims Against Mr. Alsdorf, Mr. Matheson., Mr. Sayles, and the Sayles Law Firm

Ms. Alsdorf and Mr. Matheson are the Snohomish County prosecutors who prosecuted Mr. Reed. (Mot. at 2.) Mr. Sayles, a lawyer from the Sayles Law Firm, was Mr. Reed's defense attorney. (Id.; see also id. at 12.) Ms. Shavlik alleges that, during Mr. Reed's trial, she witnessed Mr. Alsdorf, Mr. Matheson, and Mr. Sayles "tampering with a witness." (Compl. at 12.) She states that she captured the alleged witness tampering on video. (Id.) Ms. Shavlik alleges that during this incident, Mr. Alsdorf and Mr. Sayles "[gave] her the evil eye," causing her to "believe[] that her life was in danger." (Id.) Ms. Shavlik claims that Mr. Alsdorf and Mr. Matheson then proceeded to "act[] in concert" with Mr. Sayles "to take criminal action" against her on account of her "1st Amendment protected activity." (Id. at 14.)

Ms. Shavlik brings a number of claims against these Defendants. Ms. Shavlik first alleges that Mr. Alsdorf, Mr. Matheson, and Mr. Sayles retaliated against her on account of her efforts to film the Reed trial, in violation of the First Amendment, and violated her right to privacy under Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. (Id. at 15) Ms. Shavlik also brings claims for barratry, alleging that these three Defendants acted in concert with Judge Weiss to "punish" her for her First Amendment activities. (Id.) Finally, Ms. Shavlik brings claims against Mr. Sayles and the Sayles Law Firm for "abuse of process," intentional infliction of emotional distress, and "deceptive trade violations." (Id. at 17-19.) Ms. Shavlik seeks compensatory and punitive damages from

//Mr. Sayles. (Id. at 21.) She does not specify the relief she seeks against Mr. Alsdorf, Mr. Matheson, or the Sayles Law Firm. (See generally id.)

4. Claims Against the County and the Superior Court

Ms. Shavlik's claims against Snohomish County and the Superior Court are difficult to discern. Ms. Shavlik appears to allege that the Superior Court and the County improperly allowed the other Defendants to conspire to retaliate against Ms. Shavlik on account of her efforts to film the Reed trial. (Id. at 13-14.) She claims that the Superior Court "deliberately and knowingly violated [her] rights secured under [General Rule] 16, [RCW 5.68.010], and the 1st and 14th Amendments." (Id. at 13.) She seeks "a declaratory ruling . . . that . . . Snohomish County Superior Court [b]y and through . . . Judge Bruce Weiss" violated her rights to privacy under Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution, free expression under the First Amendment, counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at 20-21.) Ms. Shavlik also requests that the court issue "a writ of certiorari and prohibition" to the Superior Court "to vacate and enjoin any [o]rder entered in violation of [her] rights." (Id. at 21.)

B. Procedural History

On July 2, 2018, Ms. Shavlik filed her complaint in Skagit County Superior Court. (Id. at 1.) On July 26, 2018, Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. (Not. of Removal (Dkt. # 1).) On August 13, 2018, Snohomish County, Snohomish County Superior Court, Judge Weiss, Mr. Alsdorf, and

//Mr. Matheson filed their answer to Ms. Shavlik's complaint. (Ans. (Dkt. # 8).) On October 1, 2018, Defendants filed this joint motion to dismiss. (Mot.)

In their motion, Defendants move the court to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or grant judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) on, all of Ms. Shavlik's claims except for her PRA claim. (Id. at 1.) Defendants argue that Ms. Shavlik's claims are barred by the doctrines of judicial, prosecutorial, and litigation immunity and are insufficiently pleaded. (Id. at 2-3.) Ms. Shavlik responds that the federal pleading standards set forth in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), are not applicable in state court, where she originally filed her complaint, and seeks leave to amend. (Resp. at 5-7.) The court now turns to Defendants' motion.

III. DISCUSSION
A. Judicial Notice

At the outset, the court addresses Defendants' request that the court take judicial notice of the show-cause order that Judge Weiss entered on May 31, 2018.4 (See Mot. at 4-5; OSC.) Generally, a district court may not consider material beyond the pleadings when deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668,...

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