MESKE v. RENZELMAN

No. 2:15-CV-0359-SMJ.

LILIANA M. MESKE, Plaintiff, v. AMANDA RENZELMAN, individually and in her official capacity; DON W. ANDERSON, individually and in his official capacity; ASOTIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; ASOTIN COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; and DOES 1-10, Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. Washington.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Liliana M Meske, Plaintiff, represented by Katherine A. Hawkins , Clark and Feeney.

Attorney James W Grow, Plaintiff, represented by Katherine A. Hawkins , Clark and Feeney.

Amanda Renzelman, Defendant, represented by Michael E. McFarland, Jr. , Evans Craven & Lackie PS & Jeremy M. Zener , Evans Craven & Lackie PS.

Don W Anderson, Defendant, represented by Michael E. McFarland, Jr. , Evans Craven & Lackie PS & Jeremy M. Zener , Evans Craven & Lackie PS.

Asotin County, Defendant, represented by Michael E. McFarland, Jr. , Evans Craven & Lackie PS & Jeremy M. Zener , Evans Craven & Lackie PS.

John Doe 1-10, Defendant, represented by Michael E. McFarland, Jr. , Evans Craven & Lackie PS & Jeremy M. Zener , Evans Craven & Lackie PS.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSING DEFENDANT ASOTIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

SALVADOR MENDOZA, Jr., District Judge.

On June 19, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss the claims against Defendant Asotin County Sheriff's Department, arguing that the Sheriff's Department was not an independent legal entity capable of being sued. ECF No. 32. The Court denied this motion on August 4, 2017. ECF No. 55. Defendants now move for reconsideration. ECF No. 56. Along with asking the Court to reconsider its decision on the merits, Defendants have brought to the Court's attention that in Plaintiff's response to a separate motion that the Court has not yet reviewed, Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew her causes of action against the Asotin County Sheriff's Department. Id. Because Plaintiff has withdrawn her claims against the Asotin County Sheriff's Department, ECF No. 48 at 2, the Court grant's Defendants motion for reconsideration and dismisses the claims against the Sheriff's Department.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration Re: Defendants Motion to Dismiss Asotin County Sheriff's Department, ECF No. 56, is GRANTED. 2. All claims against Defendant Asotin County Sheriff's Department are DISMISSED, and the Clerk's Office is directed to terminate Defendant Asotin County Sheriff's Department as a party to this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk's Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to all counsel.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases