Taylor v. Washington Department of Corrections

── Taylor v. Washington Department of Corrections ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: June 01, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LORETTA TAYLOR; ANNICA MIZIN; No. 24-7120 BRETT WEAVER; BRIAN FORD; CHRIS D.C. No. LEYENDECKER; CHRISTOPHER 3:23-cv-06186-MLP SHELTON; CONNIE ALVAREZ; CORI MCGRADY; DANIELLE OYEN; DONALD WEAVER; FOREST BAILEY; MEMORANDUM* FRANK ALBERT; GERRY HENDERSON; GREGORY BROWN; GUS BORNSTEIN; JAMES ERWICK; JASON RUDOLPH; JASON SANSOM; JODIE OLDHAM; JOE DARACUNAS; JOHN OYEN; JONATHAN PHILLIPS; JULIE BORNSTEIN; KAMBERLY WARNER; KELLY LUCK; LADONNA HEBERT; LANCE WEAVER; LANE TRUSSELL; LEO BLAKLEY; LESLIE GRABLE; LOGAN VEERSAMY; MALORY ATKINS-JOHNSON; MARY TRUSSELL; NICOLETTE PHILLIPS; NIZA PUCKETT; RICHARD SCHOLL; SCOTT FLEMING; SEAN MCGRADY; SHANNON TRAVIS, FKA Shannon Hicks; SHAWN ULRICH; SHELLY LARKIN; TODD DILLMON; TONI HOFFMAN; TRACY KESSLER WYANT, FKA Tracy Kessler; TRAVIS EILERTSON; WILLIAM WYANT; YVONNE GREEN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  v. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CHERYL STRANGE; TODD DOWLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Michelle L. Peterson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted May 20, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: TALLMAN, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Plaintiffs-Appellants—forty-nine former employees of the Washington Department of Corrections (collectively, the Forty-Nine Former Employees)— brought a lawsuit against Defendants-Appellees Cheryl Strange and Todd Dowler, two officials working for the Washington Department of Corrections (DOC), for wrongful termination after they refused to comply with DOC’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate policy. Appellants appeal the district court’s decision to dismiss with prejudice three 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging violation of the Free Exercise Clause, violation of the Due Process Clause, and violation of the Equal Protection ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 24-7120 Clause. Appellants also appeal the district court’s denial of leave to amend. The district court had jurisdiction over the Forty-Nine Former Employees’ federal claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Forty-Nine Former Employees’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and Appellants do not challenge the district court’s decision to refuse supplemental jurisdiction on appeal. We affirm the district court, including on its grant of the motion to dismiss on the federal claims. We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss and “may affirm on any ground supported by the record.” Saloojas, Inc. v. Aetna Health of Cal., Inc., 80 F.4th 1011, 1014 (9th Cir. 2023). A motion to dismiss is analyzed using the plausibility pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See generally Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). The district court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss. Appellants failed to state a claim against Appellees in their official capacity because they did not identi