Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,762 chars

department offered CFRHP trainings to officers only twice— in 2011 and 2019—

and Rivas and Sparks are the only respondents who participated in those trainings.

As the respondents have not offered any evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to

infer that the City chose to structure the training and supervision of the CFRHP this

way. Clements, 121 Wn.2d at 249.

The respondents also claim the State has not established there is an underlying

constitutional violation or that the City’s policies are the moving force behind it. As

discussed above, there are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the

respondents violated due process. The “moving force” element is a test of

causation—the plaintiff must prove the City’s policies “actually caused” the

36
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside et al.
No. 101205-5

indifference to constitutional rights. Harris, 489 U.S. at 391. Again, undisputed

evidence supports this causal connection. The unrebutted police expert report

concluded inadequate training and supervision and the lack of official written policy

allowed the respondents to operate the CFRHP improperly and to improperly direct

evictions.

Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence thus far precludes

summary judgment for the City on the basis of Monell liability.

IV. Availability of Injunctive Relief

The respondents also argue they are entitled to summary judgment because

injunctive relief is not available for the state constitutional claims. Injunctive relief

may be granted if there is (1) a “‘clear legal or equitable right,’” (2) “‘a well-

grounded fear of immediate invasion of that right,’” and (3) “‘the acts complained