Donahoe et al v. Arpaio et al

Filing 70

ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant William Montgomery's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, pending in CV11-0116 (Doc. 18), is granted. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 5/25/11. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Gary Donahoe and Cherie Donahoe,
husband and wife,
Plaintiffs,

11
12

v.

13

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava
Arpaio, husband and wife; Andrew
Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband
and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R.
Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy
Chief David Hendershott and Anna
Hendershott, husband and wife;
William Montgomery only in his
official capacity as Maricopa County
Attorney; Maricopa County, a
municipal entity; and John Does I-X;
Jane Does I-X; Black Corporations IV; and White Partnerships, I-V,

14
15
16
17
18
19

Defendants.

20
21

Susan Schuerman,

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs,
v.
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava
Arpaio, husband and wife; Andres
Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband
and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R.
Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy
Chief David Hendershott and Anna
Hendershott, husband and wife;

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Lead No. CV10-2756-PHX-NVW
Consolidated with:
No. CV10-2757-PHX-NVW
No. CV10-2758-PHX-NVW
No. CV11-0116-PHX-NVW
No. CV11-0262-PHX-NVW
No. CV11-0473-PHX-NVW

ORDER

1
2
3
4

William Montgomery only in his
official capacity as Maricopa County
Attorney; Maricopa County, a
municipal entity; and John Does I-X;
Jane Does I-X; Black Corporations
I-V; and White Partnerships, I-V,

5

Defendants.

6
7

Sandra Wilson and Paul Wilson,
husband and wife,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

v.
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava
Arpaio, husband and wife; Andres
Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband
and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R.
Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy
Chief David Hendershott and Anna
Hendershott, husband and wife;
William Montgomery only in his
official capacity as Maricopa County
Attorney; Maricopa County, a
municipal entity; and John Does I-X;
Jane Does I-X; Black Corporations
I-V; and White Partnerships, I-V,
Defendants.
Conley D. Wolfswinkel, a single man;
Brandon D. Wolfswinkel, a single
man; Ashton A. Wolfswinkel, a single
man; Vanderbilt Farms, LLC, an
Arizona limited liability company;
ABCDW, LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company; Stone Canyon,
LLC, an Arizona limited liability
company; Vistoso Partners, LLC, an
Arizona limited liability company;
and W Harquahala, LLC, an Arizona
limited liability company;
Plaintiffs,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

27
28

-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

v.
Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio,
husband and wife; David Hendershott
and Anna Hendershott, husband and
wife; Jonathan Halverson and Jane
Doe Halverson, husband and wife;
Patrick Roshetko and Jane Doe
Roshetko, husband and wife; Andrew
P. Thomas and Anne Thomas,
husband and wife; Lisa Aubuchon
and Peter R. Pestalozzi, wife and
husband; William Montgomery only
in his official capacity as Maricopa
County Attorney; and Maricopa
County, a municipal entity,

10
Defendants.
11
12

Stephen Wetzel and Nancy Wetzel,
husband and wife,

13
Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

v.
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava
Arpaio, husband and wife; Andrew
Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband
and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R.
Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Chief
Deputy David Hendershott and Anna
Hendershott, husband and wife;
William Montgomery, only in his
official capacity as Maricopa County
Attorney; Maricopa County, a
municipal entity; and John Does I-X;
Jane Does I-X; Black Corporations
I-V; and White Partnerships, I-V,
Defendants.

24
25
26

Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox, wife and
husband,
Plaintiffs,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

27
28

-3-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

v.
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava
Arpaio, husband and wife; Andrew
Thomas and Anne Thomas husband
and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R.
Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy
Chief Sheriff David Hendershott and
Anna Hendershott, husband and wife;
William Montgomery only in his
official capacity as Maricopa County
Attorney; Maricopa County, a
governmental entity;
Defendants.

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

10
11
Before the Court is Defendant William Montgomery’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to

12
13

Dismiss, which is pending in CV11-0116 (“Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs”) (Doc. 18). Defendant

14

Montgomery is the current Maricopa County attorney. The Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs have sued

15

Montgomery in his official capacity as County attorney, and not in his personal capacity.

16

The Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs do not claim that Montgomery himself committed any

17

wrongdoing, or that he is responsible for the wrongdoing of any other party; indeed,

18

Montgomery became County attorney only after the events at issue in these actions took

19

place.

20
21
22
23

When a state or local official is sued in his official capacity, the practical effect is the
same as suing the County itself for damages. Because the Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs have also
named the County as a defendant in their action, there is no purpose in maintaining
Montgomery as a defendant; the potential for Plaintiffs’ recovery is the same, whether

24
25
26

Montgomery is a named defendant in his official capacity or whether he is dismissed,
because the County remains a defendant. The fact that the County has to date denied the

27

allegations against it does not make Montgomery a necessary party to this litigation. Rather,

28

-4-

1

because he is a redundant defendant, the Court will grant Montgomery’s motion to dismiss.

2

See Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. L.A. County Sheriff Dep’t, 533 F.3d 790, 799 (9th

3

Cir. 2008) (noting that when “both a municipal officer and a local government entity are

4

named, and the officer is named only in an official capacity, the court may dismiss the officer

5
6

as a redundant defendant”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant William Montgomery’s Rule 12(b)(6)

7
8
9

Motion to Dismiss, pending in CV11-0116 (Doc. 18), is granted.
DATED this 25th day of May, 2011.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-