Rigsby v. Arizona, State of et al
Filing
16
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 7) is denied. (2) Plaintiff's "Petition for Writ of Prohibition" (Doc. 14) is denied. (3) Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first am ended complaint in compliance with the September 8, 2011 Order and this Order. (4) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice. (See document for details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/31/12.(LAD)
1
2
MDR
WO
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Raymond Earl Rigsby,
Plaintiff,
10
11
vs.
12
State of Arizona, et al.,
13
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 11-1696-PHX-DGC (ECV)
ORDER
14
15
I.
Procedural History
16
On June 27, 2011, Plaintiff Raymond Earl Rigsby, who is confined in the Arizona
17
State Prison Complex-Yuma in San Luis, Arizona, filed a Complaint in the Superior Court
18
of Maricopa County, Arizona. On August 26, 2011, Defendant Jan Brewer filed a Notice of
19
Removal and removed the case to this Court. On September 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed a
20
document entitled “Writ of Prohibition and Request for Appropriate Sanctions,” in which he
21
requested that the Court issue a “Writ of Prohibition.”
22
In a September 8, 2011 Order, the Court concluded that removal was appropriate
23
because Plaintiff, in his Complaint, raised claims for violations of his constitutional rights
24
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, without prejudice,
25
because Plaintiff had failed to file his Complaint on a court-approved form, as required by
26
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended
27
complaint on a court-approved form.
28
JDDL
1
On September 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Vacate and or Amended Order
2
of 09-08-2011 (with Affidavit)” (Doc. 7). In his Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff requested that
3
the Court vacate or amend the September 2, 2011 Order and enter an order striking or
4
dismissing the Notice of Removal. On October 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend
5
Time, requesting that the Court grant him an extension of time to file his first amended
6
complaint 30 days after the Court ruled on his Motion to Vacate.
7
In a November 1, 2011 Order, the Court denied without prejudice the September 2nd
8
request for a “Writ of Prohibition,” granted the Motion to Extend Time, gave Defendant 20
9
days to file a response to the Motion to Vacate, and gave Plaintiff 10 days after the response
10
was filed to file a reply. The Court also allowed Plaintiff 30 days after the Court ruled on the
11
Motion to Vacate to file his first amended complaint.
12
On November 8, 2011, Defendant filed her Response (Doc. 11). On November 18,
13
2011, Plaintiff filed his Reply (Doc. 12). On January 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “Petition for
14
Writ of Prohibition” (Doc. 14).
15
II.
16
17
Motion to Vacate
In his Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff alleges three grounds for striking the Notice of
Removal and remanding the case back to the state court.
18
A.
Conflict of Interest
19
Plaintiff claims that the Arizona Attorney General is a defendant in this action but has
20
also appeared as counsel for Defendant Brewer. Plaintiff asserts that the Court “lacks
21
jurisdiction subject matter due to conflict of interest, due process.” Plaintiff has cited nothing
22
to explain how a conflict of interest between two defendants deprives the Court of subject
23
matter jurisdiction.
24
B.
Failure to Answer
25
Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ failure to file a timely answer to the Complaint “is
26
a default” or a violation of a statute of limitations and deprives the Court of subject matter
27
jurisdiction. He is incorrect. A defendant’s failure to answer in this case does not constitute
28
JDDL
-2-
1
a “default” or deprive the Court of jurisdiction. In fact, Congress specifically envisioned
2
such a situation and addressed it in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g), which provides:
3
(1)
Any defendant may waive the right to reply to any action
brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other
correctional facility under section 1983 of this title or any other
Federal law. Notwithstanding any other law or rule of
procedure, such waiver shall not constitute an admission of the
allegations contained in the complaint. No relief shall be granted
to the plaintiff unless a reply has been filed.
4
5
6
7
(2)
The court may require any defendant to reply to a
complaint brought under this section if it finds that the plaintiff
has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits.
8
9
C.
Failure to Serve Copy of Notice of Removal
10
Plaintiff claims that Defendant Brewer failed to serve him with a copy of the Notice
11
of Removal, that this deprived Plaintiff of due process and access to the court and “is
12
sufficient to deprive this Court of jurisdiction subject matter.” The Court disagrees.
13
1.
Parties’ Arguments
14
Plaintiff states in his Motion to Vacate that he appeared telephonically at a state court
15
hearing in this matter on August 29, 2011, and was advised that the hearing would not
16
proceed because Defendant Brewer had filed a Notice of Removal. He alleges that the
17
following day he received a letter from the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court
18
for the District of Arizona explaining that the case had been removed from the state court to
19
this Court. Plaintiff alleges that the following day, August 31, 2011, he received an envelope
20
from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office that contained a copy of his complaint and other
21
documents without explanation. Plaintiff claims that he has not been served with a copy of
22
the Notice as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(e).
23
24
legal secretary at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office mailed, on August 26th, a copy of
25
the Notice of Removal to Plaintiff and also mailed to Plaintiff a copy of a “Notice to Adverse
26
Party of Removal to Federal Court” that had been filed in the state court. Defendant Brewer
27
asserts, therefore, that “Plaintiff received proper notice under the statute when he was mailed
28
JDDL
In her Response, Defendant Brewer states that after filing the Notice of Removal, a
a copy of the notice of removal.”
-3-
1
In his Reply, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Brewer has failed to meet her burden of
2
proving that she gave written notice to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff received it. He states that
3
although he received on August 31st an envelope from the Arizona Attorney General’s
4
Office that contained his Complaint and other documents “without expla[]nation,” he did not
5
receive a copy of the Notice of Removal. He claims that he generally receives legal mail
6
from the courts and attorneys the day after it is mailed, but even allowing extra time, he
7
should have received a copy of the Notice of Removal by August 29th, but did not. He
8
claims that the legal secretary’s affidavit submitted by Defendant Brewer is insufficient to
9
meet her burden of proof, in light of the affidavits and evidence Plaintiff has submitted.
10
2.
Discussion
11
As the Court stated in its November 1, 2011 Order, Plaintiff has incorrectly relied on
12
an outdated version of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(e). That subsection no longer relates to the removal
13
of civil actions. As noted in the November 1st Order, the correct statute is 28 U.S.C.
14
§ 1446(d), which provides, in relevant part, that “[p]romptly after the filing of such notice
15
of removal of a civil action the defendant or defendants shall give written notice thereof
16
to all adverse parties.” (Emphasis added).
17
Although a defendant “bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper,”
18
Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009),
19
there is no dispute that Defendant Brewer was entitled to remove this case. To the extent that
20
Defendant Brewer may not have provided Plaintiff with the notice required by § 1446(d), the
21
Court finds that the “the alleged defect is harmless and, not being jurisdictional, creates no
22
basis for remand.” Calderon v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., 101 F. Supp. 2d 246, 248 (S.D.N.Y.
23
2000).
24
25
of Removal itself, he is incorrect. Section 1446(d) does not require service of the Notice of
26
Removal, it simply requires that a defendant give written notice that the Notice of Removal
27
has been filed. Runaj v. Wells Fargo Bank, 667 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1202 (S.D. Cal. 2009)
28
JDDL
To the extent Plaintiff believes he is entitled to be served with a copy of the Notice
(“Section 1446(d) does not require ‘formal’ or ‘personal’ service of a notice of removal upon
-4-
1
a plaintiff; it merely requires ‘written notice.’”). The legal secretary’s affidavit sufficiently
2
demonstrates that she attempted to mailed a copy of the Notice of Removal to Plaintiff at his
3
prison address. This does not, however, clarify the issue of whether Plaintiff actually
4
received a copy of the Notice of Removal. His allegations and submitted evidence suggest
5
that he did not.
6
“Where defendants make a good faith effort to give notice, and where plaintiffs suffer
7
no prejudice as a result of the failure of that attempt, . . . the requirements of section 1446(d)
8
are sufficiently fulfilled to effect removal.” L & O Partnership No. 2 v. Aetna Cas. and Sur.
9
Co., 761 F. Supp. 549, 552 (N.D. Ill. 1991). See also Busby v. Capital One, N.A. 759
10
F. Supp. 2d 81, 85-86 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing other recent authorities holding that a good faith
11
effort to provide written notice satisfies § 1446(d) absent any prejudice to the plaintiff).
12
Here, the Court finds that Defendant Brewer has demonstrated a good faith effort to give
13
notice. The affidavit she submitted states that a legal secretary at the Arizona Attorney
14
General’s Office mailed a copy of the Notice of Removal to Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not
15
dispute that he received mail from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, just that it arrived
16
a few days later than he would have expected and did not contain a copy of the Notice of
17
Removal. It appears, therefore, that Defendant Brewer attempted to mail the Notice of
18
Removal to Plaintiff, although the Notice of Removal itself may not have been included in
19
the envelope.1
20
In addition, Plaintiff cannot credibly claim that he was prejudiced by not receiving
21
written notice from Defendant Brewer. As previously noted, § 1446(d) does not require that
22
a defendant send a copy of the notice of removal itself. Even if Plaintiff did not receive
23
written notice from Defendant Brewer, he did receive prompt notice that the case had been
24
removed. By Plaintiff’s own admission, he received oral notice from the state court and a
25
written notice from this Court, both of which informed Plaintiff that a notice of removal had
26
been filed. To the extent that Plaintiff may not have received written notice of the removal
27
28
JDDL
1
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Complaint “and other documents that were previously
filed with the state court” were attached to the Notice of Removal. See Doc. 1 at 2.
-5-
1
from Defendant Brewer, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not been prejudice by it. Remand
2
of this case is therefore inappropriate. The Court will deny the Motion to Vacate.
3
III.
Petition for Writ of Prohibition
4
Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Prohibition seeks to have the case remanded to the state
5
court, sanctions, and his costs incurred in bringing the Petition and the Motion to Vacate.
6
Plaintiff’s claims in his Petition for Writ of Prohibition are essentially the same as those in
7
his Motion to Vacate and Reply. Because the Court has denied the Motion to Vacate, the
8
Court will also deny the Petition for Writ of Prohibition.
9
IV.
Time to File First Amended Complaint
10
In the Court’s November 1, 2011 Order, the Court stated that Plaintiff would have 30
11
days from the time that the Court ruled on Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate within which to file
12
a first amended complaint that complies with the Court’s September 8, 2011 Order. Because
13
this Order denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of
14
this Order to file his first amended complaint.
15
V.
Warnings
16
A.
Address Changes
17
Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule
18
83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other
19
relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this
20
action.
21
B.
Copies
22
Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See
23
LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice
24
to Plaintiff.
25
C.
Possible Dismissal
26
If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of the September 8, 2011 Order
27
and this Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further
28
JDDL
-6-
1
notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may
2
dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court).
3
IT IS ORDERED:
4
(1)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 7) is denied.
5
(2)
Plaintiff’s “Petition for Writ of Prohibition” (Doc. 14) is denied.
6
(3)
Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended
7
8
9
10
11
complaint in compliance with the September 8, 2011 Order and this Order.
(4)
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of
Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without
prejudice.
DATED this 31st day of January, 2012.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JDDL
-7-
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?