Farnham v. Cooper et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting 9 Defendant Steven Forster's motion to dismiss. Defendants John C. Cooper's and Ann M. Froio's 13 motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.'s, complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed with pr ejudice. Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.'s, 10 motion to serve under seal is denied as moot. Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.'s, 14 motion for summary judgment on Defendant Froio is denied as moot. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to terminate this matter. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/22/12.(DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

No. CV-11-1094 PHX-DGC
ORDER

vs.
John C. Cooper, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr. is a resident of the Arizona State Hospital

16

(“ASH”). Mr. Farnham filed a complaint against Defendants John C. Cooper, Steven

17

Forster, and Ann M. Froio in their official capacities as Chief Executive Officer, Chief of

18

Security, and Director of ASH. Doc. 1. Mr. Farnham alleges the destruction and loss of

19

his personal belongings and craft items after a flood occurred in his residential unit and

20

Defendants forced him to relocate without first packing his things. Id. at 2-4. Mr.

21

Farnham requests compensation from all Defendants for the loss of his belongings in the

22

amount of $700 and for his mental anguish in the amount of $1,000. Id. at 5. Mr.

23

Farnham also requests that the Court order Defendants that Mr. Farnham “not be

24

separated from his personal property again.” Id.

25

Defendant Forster filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Eleventh

26

Amendment bars claims against him in his official capacity and that Mr. Farnham fails to

27

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Doc. 9. Defendants Cooper and Froio

28

1

filed a separate motion to dismiss, adopting and incorporating the arguments put forth by

2

Defendant Forster and raising the additional argument that neither of them currently

3

holds positions for which they can be sued in their official capacities. Doc. 13 at 1-2.

4

The motions have been fully briefed (Docs. 11, 12; 15, 16.), and no party has requested

5

oral argument. As explained below, the Court will grant these motions and dismiss Mr.

6

Farnham’s complaint.

7

Mr. Forster’s motion quotes heavily from an order in Case No. 2:11-CV-00192-

8

PHX-NVW in which Judge Neil V. Wake dismissed a nearly identical complaint that Mr.

9

Farnham filed against the same Defendants.1 Doc. 9 at 3-5. The Court agrees, for the

10

reasons already stated in Judge Wake’s order, that Mr. Farnham has failed to state a claim

11

upon which relief can be granted. See Case No. 2:11-CV-00192-PHX-NVW, Doc. 10.

12

In Mr. Farnham’s prior cause of action, Judge Wake twice dismissed Mr. Farnham’s

13

complaints with leave to amend, explaining in detail the Eleventh Amendment bar, Mr.

14

Farnham’s failure to name Defendants acting in their individual capacities, his failure to

15

allege future harm for purpose of seeking an injunction, and his failure to plead sufficient

16

facts to show that each Defendant intentionally violated his constitutional rights. See id.,

17

Docs. 6, 8. Judge Wake dismissed Mr. Farnham’s second amended complaint with

18

prejudice upon concluding that Mr. Farnham had again failed to cure the pleading

19

deficiencies of his complaint and that further leave to amend would be futile. Id.,

20

Doc. 10, at 4 (“[N]one of Farnham’s allegations against any Defendant – especially his

21

allegations of intent – rise “above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Any

22

number of circumstances could explain Farnham’s loss of property.

23

complaints, he simply has not alleged any facts plausibly suggesting that Defendants

24

intentionally deprived him of his property.”). Mr. Farnham’s instant complaint provides

25

no new legal theories or relevant factual allegations to cure the deficiencies of his prior

After three

26
27
28

1

That complaint also named Will Hubble, Division Director, and had originally
named the State of Arizona and ACPTC, a division of the Arizona State Hospital.
-2-

1

cause of action. The Court will grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss Mr. Farnham’s

2

complaint with prejudice for the reasons already identified in Judge Wake’s prior three

3

orders. See Case No. 2:11-CV-00192-PHX-NVW, Docs. 6, 8, 10.

4

Mr. Farnham filed a motion to serve Defendant Cooper (Doc. 10) and a motion for

5

summary judgment on Defendant Froio for failing to answer the complaint and failing to

6

return a waiver of service (Doc. 14). Because the Court has ruled to dismiss Mr.

7

Farnham’s complaint as to all Defendants, the Court will deny these motions as moot.

8

IT IS ORDERED:

9

1.

Defendant Steven Forster’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is granted.

10

2.

Defendants John C. Cooper’s and Ann M. Froio’s motion to dismiss

11

(Doc. 13) is granted.

12

3.

13

with prejudice.

14

4.

15
16
17

Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.’s, complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed

Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.’s, motion to serve under seal

(Doc. 10) is denied as moot.
5.

Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.’s, motion for summary judgment on

Defendant Froio (Doc. 14) is denied as moot.

18

6.

The Clerk of the Court is ordered to terminate this matter.

19

Dated this 22nd day of February, 2012.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-