Dawson

Plaintiffs-Appellants Jerri L. Dawson, David Emry, Byron Foltz, and Shelly N. Sogga (Plaintiffs) appeal the district court’s orders denying them motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to the defendants: Alonzo Plough, Bill Lasby, Perry Lee, King County, Gil Kerlikowske, and the City of Seattle (Defendants), thereby extinguishing Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. 1 Plaintiffs at pertinent times were tenants of boardinghouses inspected by public health officials and secured by Seattle police. Defendants Plough, Lasby, and Lee at pertinent times were employees of the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. Defendant Kerlikowske was Chief of Police for the City of Seattle during the events underlying this case.

Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and that Plaintiffs are *1057 entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the search underlying this case violated the Fourth Amendment; because King County’s failure to teach its public health inspectors a constitutionally proper procedure to obtain and execute search warrants caused the allegedly unconstitutional search; because, during the…

specially concurring:

Although I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion and in sections H.A., II.B. and II.D., the opinion’s analysis of claims against King County, I cannot concur in section II.C. dealing with the liability of the City of Seattle. I disagree with the majority’s reasoning in that section of the opinion and offer an alternate, taking as true the Plaintiffs’ (non-moving parties’) assertion of the facts, as the basis for deciding these claims. The police officers’ search of boarders’ rooms was not reasonable within the meanings of Gan-wich and Muehler. However, since the suit is against the City, not the individual officers, Monell v. Department of Social Senices, 436 U.S. 658 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), controls. Plaintiffs have not shown that the Seattle Police Department’s policies or training caused the alleged deprivation of their civil rights.

In the majority opinion, the preamble to Section II accurately reflects the issues that we must decide in this appeal. As to the City of Seattle, the issue is “whether the City of Seattle is liable as a municipality for having a policy or custom that caused Plaintiffs to be detained…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JERRI L. DAWSON; DAVID EMRY; 

BYRON FOLTZ; SHELLY N. SOGGA,

individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation; GIL KERLIKOWSKE, City of Seattle Chief of Police, in his official capacity; KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; ALONZO L. PLOUGH, No. 03-35858 Director, Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, in  D.C. No.

CV-02-01046-RSL

his official capacity; PERRY LEE, Health and Environmental OPINION Investigator II, Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, in his official and individual capacity; BILL LASBY, Health and Environmental Investigator IV, Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, in his official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 17, 2005—Seattle, Washington

927 928 DAWSON v. CITY OF SEATTLE Filed January 24, 2006

Before: Betty Binns Fletcher, Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges, and Samuel P. King,* District…