Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1012055.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
Full Text
1,716 charsdeclarations provide a contrary picture as to those respondents as well. For example, the Francises claim their landlord evicted them because Rivard and Rivas threatened her with a $1,000 fine if she did not. Guizar claims Rivard told her to move out of her house in three days. Santos Nuño claims Sparks, Glossen, and Rivas told her she had two days to leave her home. Taken in the light most favorable to the State, these accounts of the respondents’ actions would support the State’s claim that they improperly enforced the CFRHP by directing evictions without proper notice and process. Additionally, Chagolla recalls that Escalera said Rivas was in charge of the CFRHP and he could not do anything about it, which could support the State’s claim that Escalera failed to supervise Rivas and the enforcement of the CFRHP. This evidence is sufficient at least to create genuine disputes of material fact as to whether 34 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. State v. City of Sunnyside et al. No. 101205-5 the individual respondents engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of a clearly established right. Respondents are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. “Denial of qualified immunity is not a finding of liability, but simply a delegation of that question to the trier of fact.” Staats, 139 Wn.2d at 772. On this record, there are genuine disputes of material fact and the respondents are not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. III. Municipal Liability A municipality may be held liable under § 1983 “when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose