District Court, W.D. Washington — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Turay v. Seling
District Court, W.D. Washington · 2000-05-05 · cited 6×
This case concerns conditions at Washington's Special Commitment Center, where individuals are civilly committed indefinitely as sexually violent predators after completing criminal sentences. Plaintiffs challenged the adequacy of mental health treatment provided, leading to a prior contempt finding against facility officials for failing to comply with a 1994 injunction requiring constitutionally adequate care. After a four-day evidentiary hearing in April 2000, the court evaluated whether defendants had achieved substantial compliance with the injunction before sanctions took effect. The core reasoning rests on Fourteenth Amendment due process requirements that civilly committed persons receive treatment offering a realistic opportunity for improvement, citing precedents like Youngberg v. Romeo, with the Washington statute also mandating adequate individualized care.
civil rightscriminal lawhealthcare
Prado Hernandez v. Reno
District Court, W.D. Washington · 1999-08-03 · cited 10×
The case involved Ramiro Prado Hernandez, a Mexican citizen previously deported in 1992 who reentered the U.S. illegally, married a U.S. citizen, and applied for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) while the INS sought to reinstate his prior deportation order under INA § 241(a)(5) without a hearing or consideration of his application. The district court first determined it had habeas corpus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to address the legal questions presented, rejecting the INS arguments that review was limited to the court of appeals. On the merits, the court held that § 241(a)(5) did not bar adjudication of the adjustment application because § 245(i), reenacted after IIRIRA, permits such relief for aliens who paid the required penalty and that the INS interpretation to the contrary was erroneous; accordingly, reinstatement of the deportation order was stayed pending decision on the adjustment application.
immigration
Oregon Natural Resources Council Action v. United States Forest Service
District Court, W.D. Washington · 1999-08-02 · cited 23×
This case concerns a challenge by environmental organizations under the Administrative Procedure Act to the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management's approval of timber sales in the Pacific Northwest without conducting wildlife surveys required by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. Plaintiffs argued that interpretive memoranda issued by the agencies unlawfully exempted sales from survey requirements for certain species if environmental reviews occurred before specified cutoff dates, and that a supplemental environmental impact statement was needed due to new information. The court reviewed the plan's language and agency actions on motions for summary judgment. It concluded that the memoranda contradicted the plan's explicit requirements for surveys prior to ground-disturbing activities implemented after the deadlines, rendering the timber sale approvals arbitrary and capricious, with no deference owed to interpretations that conflict with the plan's clear terms.
environmentfederal powerprocedure
NORTHWEST LABORERS-EMPLOYERS v. Philip Morris, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Washington · 1999-07-22
The case involved health and welfare trusts for union workers suing major tobacco companies, alleging they conspired to deceive the public and health providers about the addictiveness of cigarettes and to suppress safer alternatives, thereby causing the trusts to bear increased costs for treating smoking-related illnesses. After federal claims were dismissed, the remaining state-law claims under Washington law included unjust enrichment, violations of the Consumer Protection Act, tortious interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed all claims, reasoning that the plaintiffs' injuries were too remote and indirect to satisfy requirements of proximate cause or antitrust injury, that no evidence showed defendants knew of the trusts' contracts, and that the conspiracy claim lacked an underlying actionable tort; the court also denied the plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify questions to the Washington Supreme Court.
labor & employmenthealthcaretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory
Sivongxay v. Reno
District Court, W.D. Washington · 1999-07-09 · cited 2×
The case involved a habeas corpus petition by Khamsaene Sivongxay, a Laotian citizen and lawful U.S. permanent resident convicted of a deportable offense, who had been held in INS custody for over two years after a final deportation order because Laos refused to issue travel documents. Sivongxay challenged his indefinite detention as violating statutory time limits on post-order detention and substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment. The court first addressed jurisdiction, finding habeas review available under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without an exhaustion requirement. It then held that pre-AEDPA/IIRIRA law applied due to non-retroactivity principles and limited detention to six months, and that continued indefinite detention was excessive relative to the government's interests in ensuring removal and protecting the public. The petition was granted, ordering Sivongxay's release under Attorney General supervision.
immigrationcivil rights
Getty v. Harmon
District Court, W.D. Washington · 1999-04-01 · cited 7×
This case involves plaintiffs bringing federal securities claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against defendants including SunAmerica Securities, Inc., based on investments in promissory notes that were renewed over time. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims as time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations from discovery of the violation and the three-year statute of repose. The court denied the motion, holding that defendants had not shown the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on when plaintiffs were placed on inquiry notice. On the statute of repose, the court determined that each renewal constituted a new sale of a security because the investors had the option to reject the renewals, so the repose period began running from the date of each renewal rather than the original investment.
business & regulatoryprocedure