Baker v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona et al

Filing 19

ORDER The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant's 12 Motion to Dismiss. Defendant's 12 Motion to Dismiss is granted. Count III is dismissed. The remaining claim is Count I. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 03/16/12. (ESL)

Download PDF
1 WO JWB 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 John Allen Baker, Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. 12 Arizona State Attorney General, et al., Defendants. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 11-1411-PHX-RCB (MEA) ORDER 14 15 Plaintiff John Allen Baker brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 16 against City of Phoenix Police Officer Philips (Doc. 5). Before the Court is Defendant’s 17 Motion to Dismiss Count III for failure to comply with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01, to which 18 Plaintiff did not respond (Doc. 12). The Court will grant the motion and dismiss Count III. 19 I. Background and Motion 20 In August 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint contending that 21 Defendant violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights (Count I) and his rights under the 22 Arizona Constitution (Count III) based upon Defendant’s warrantless and suspicionless 23 search of Plaintiff’s car. Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claim because 24 Plaintiff failed to file a notice of claim required under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01 (Doc. 12). 25 II. 26 27 28 Analysis Arizona Revised Statute § 12-821.01(A) states the following: Persons who have claims against a public entity or a public employee shall file claims with the person or persons authorized to accept service for the public entity or public employee as set forth in the Arizona rules of civil procedure within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues. The claim shall contain facts sufficient to permit the public entity or public employee to understand the basis upon which liability is claimed. The claim shall also contain a specific amount for which the claim can be settled and the facts supporting that amount. Any claim which is not filed within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues is barred and no action may be maintained thereon. 1 2 3 4 5 6 After Defendant filed his motion, the Court issued a notice informing Plaintiff of his 7 obligation to respond (Doc. 14). In failing to respond to the motion, Plaintiff does not 8 introduce any evidence that he complied with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01(A). Nor does his 9 First Amended Complaint make any mention of compliance with the statute. Accordingly, 10 Plaintiff’s state law claim in Count III is barred for failure to file a notice of claim and it will 11 be dismissed. 12 Alternatively, the Court has the discretion under Rule 7.2(i) of the Local Rules of 13 Civil Procedure to deem Plaintiff’s lack of response as consent to Defendant’s motion to 14 dismiss. Plaintiff was specifically warned of this possibility (Doc. 14). And the Ninth 15 Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a dismissal based on a failure to comply with a similar 16 local rule in the District of Nevada. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). 17 For this additional reason, Defendant’s motion will be granted and Count III will be 18 dismissed. 19 IT IS ORDERED: 20 21 (1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12). 22 (2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) is granted. 23 (3) Count III is dismissed. The remaining claim is Count I. 24 DATED this 16th day of March, 2012. 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?