Roy D. Cheesman v. John Graf ( 2020 )

FILED
MARCH 24, 2020
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
ROY D. CHEESMAN, ) No. 36347-3-III
)
Appellant, )
)
v. )
) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JOHN GRAF; TIA ROSS; NANCY )
WILLBANKS; BEN MOUNT; and the )
ELLENSBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT, )
)
Respondents. )
P ENNELL, C.J. — Roy Cheesman appeals a summary judgment order dismissing his
complaint against the Ellensburg School District and several of its employees. We affirm.
FACTS
Employees of the Ellensburg School District noticed a six-year-old student came to
school with a black eye. When asked, the student offered two explanations for the bruising;
in one, she stated her father, Roy Cheesman, had caused it by striking her. Consistent with
Washington’s mandatory reporting statutes, RCW 26.44.030 and.040, school officials
contacted Child Protective Services (CPS). As a consequence, Mr. Cheesman’s daughter
was removed from his home. The State brought, but later dismissed, criminal charges
against Mr. Cheesman.
No. 36347-3-III
Cheesman v. Graf
Mr. Cheesman filed a lawsuit against the Ellensburg School District and four of its
employees. He sought relief for intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious
prosecution. The District moved for summary judgment, arguing Mr. Cheesman’s claims
lacked factual and legal support. Mr. Cheesman opposed the District’s motion, but did not
otherwise submit evidence supporting his claims. Instead, he sought a continuance to
conduct discovery.
The superior court considered the parties’ positions during an in-person hearing. At
the hearing, the court engaged Mr. Cheesman in a lengthy colloquy. The court asked Mr.
Cheesman why he had not yet obtained evidence supporting his claims. Mr. Cheesman
stated he had been confused as to the process. He also cited his work schedule, medication,
and the pendency of criminal charges against him for half of the case’s duration. The court
also questioned Mr. Cheesman on the legal basis for his claims. Mr. Cheesman asserted that
the defendants violated the law because they should have contacted the police regarding
alleged abuse instead of CPS.
The trial court ruled Mr. Cheesman had not presented a case of excusable delay and
denied his continuance motion. The court also found Mr. Cheesman lacked sufficient
evidence to support his claims, and granted summary judgment to the District and its
employees. Mr. Cheesman timely appeals.
2
No. 36347-3-III
Cheesman v. Graf
ANALYSIS
In his pro se appeal, Mr. Cheesman lists 12 assignments of error. The majority of the
alleged errors are not well developed. However, it appears Ms. Cheesman is arguing: (1) the
trial court improperly denied his motion to continue, and (2) the defendants failed to
support their motion for summary judgment. 1
A trial court’s decision on a motion to continue a summary judgment hearing is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Barkley v. GreenPoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., 190 Wn.
App. 58, 71, 358 P.3d 1204 (2015). Discretion is abused when a decision is “manifestly
unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” State ex rel.
Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wash. 2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971). A summary judgment
continuance is not permissible if “(1) the requesting party does not have a good reason for
the delay in obtaining the evidence, (2) the requesting party does not indicate what evidence
would be established by further discovery, or (3) the new evidence would not raise a
genuine issue of fact.” Barkley, 190 Wash. App. at 71 (quoting Qwest Corp. v. City of
Bellevue, 161 Wash. 2d 353, 369, 166 P.3d 667 (2007), abrogated on other grounds by
Cost Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v . City of Lakewood, 178 Wash. 2d 635, 310 P.3d 804 (2013)).
1 To the extent Mr. Cheesman has attempted to raise additional errors, his claims are
not sufficiently developed to warrant appellate review. See RAP 10.3(a)(6); In re Marriage
of Fahey, 164 Wash. App. 42, 59, 262 P.3d 128 (2011).
3
No. 36347-3-III
Cheesman v. Graf
No abuse of discretion happened here. Mr. Cheesman’s case had been pending for a
significant period of time prior to the defendants’ summary judgment motion. During the
court hearing, Mr. Cheesman could not articulate sufficient reasons for his delay in
obtaining evidence and, perhaps more importantly, he did not identify what relevant
evidence could be obtained should the court grant his request. Although Mr. Cheesman was
proceeding pro se, the trial court properly held him to the same standard as an attorney.
Kelsey v. Kelsey, 179 Wash. App. 360, 368, 317 P.3d 1096 (2014).
Turning to the merits of the summary judgment order, the test is whether the moving
party demonstrated an absence of genuine issues of material fact such that it was entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). Genuine issues are absent when the available
evidence could not lead any reasonable juror to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.
Reyes v. Yakima Health Dist., 191 Wash. 2d 79, 86, 419 P.3d 819 (2018). “A defendant may
move for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff lacks competent evidence to
support its claim.” Hymas v. UAP Distrib., Inc., 167 Wash. App. 136, 150, 272 P.3d 889
(2012).
The defendants’ summary judgment submissions amply supported the trial court’s
ruling. The undisputed statements by Mr. Cheesman’s daughter provided school employees
4
No. 36347-3-III
Cheesman v. Graf
a sufficient basis for making a referral to CPS. 2 This precludes a claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution. Christian v. Tohmeh, 191 Wn.
App. 709, 735-36, 366 P.3d 16 (2015) (The tort of intentional infliction of emotional
distress requires objectively outrageous conduct “beyond all possible bounds of decency.”);
Hanson v. City of Snohomish, 121 Wash. 2d 552, 558, 852 P.2d 295 (1993) (Malicious
prosecution requires absence of probable cause.).
CONCLUSION
The trial court’s order of summary judgment and judgment of dismissal are affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in
the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
_________________________________
Pennell, C.J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
Korsmo, J. Siddoway, J.
2The statute states that professional school personnel shall report abuse to
law enforcement or the department of children, youth, and families (i.e., CPS).
RCW 26.44.030(1)(a); see also RCW 26.44.020(4), (10).
5