Palmer v. Jones et al

Filing 35

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the response (Doc. 29),1 the motion to disqualify the attorney general's office (Doc. 23) is denied.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the motion to dismiss (Doc. 18),2 the motion is granted; this case is dismissed, with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that because this case is dismissed, Plaintiffs requests for injunctive relief (part of Doc. 5) are denied. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 12/16/11.(LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Honorable Kenton D. Jones; Honorable)
Robert M. Brutinel; Honorable John)
Pelander; Honorable W. Scott Bales;)
Honorable Andrew D. Hurwitz; Honorable)
)
Rebecca White Berch,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Peter Michael Palmer,

No. CV 11-1896-PHX-JAT
ORDER

17
18

Pending before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the attorney general’s

19

office from representing Defendants based on an alleged conflict of interest, 2) Defendants’

20

motion to dismiss based on judicial immunity, and 3) Plaintiff’s request for a temporary

21

restraining order and preliminary injunction as outlined in his complaint and amended

22

complaint. The Court now rules as follows.

23
24
25

IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the response (Doc. 29),1 the motion
to disqualify the attorney general’s office (Doc. 23) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the motion to dismiss

26
27
28

1

Specifically, assuming for purposes of this Order only that the attorney general’s
office has a conflict of interest with its clients (the Defendants), Plaintiff does not have
standing to raise such a conflict. See Doc. 29 at 3-5.

1

(Doc. 18),2 the motion is granted; this case is dismissed, with prejudice, and the Clerk of the

2

Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

3
4
5

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that because this case is dismissed, Plaintiff’s requests
for injunctive relief (part of Doc. 5) are denied.
DATED this 16th day of December, 2011.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Specifically, Defendants are all immune from suit for their judicial decisions based
on judicial immunity (see Doc. 18 at 4-6). Defendants are all sued in their official capacities,
based on their actions taken as judicial officers and, therefore, are all entitled to dismissal
based on judicial immunity.
-2-