Gallegos v. Reinstein et al

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING plaintiff's 4 motion to withdraw his guilty plea; DENYING plaintiff's 5 motion for a civil trial, and DENYING plaintiff's 15 motion to amend his complaint. GRANTING defendant Connell's 6 motion to dismiss, and GRANTING the state defendants' 14 motion to dismiss. The clerk shall enter final judgment. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 6/27/12. (DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Arthur Charles Gallegos,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Ronald Reinstein, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

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

No. CV-12-0444-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15
16
17

On March 26, 1988, plaintiff, while intoxicated, drove at a high rate of speed down

18

the wrong way of a street in Phoenix, collided with another car, and killed 3 people. On

19

April 21, 1989, plaintiff entered a no contest plea to three counts of vehicular manslaughter

20

in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County and was sentenced to serve concurrent

21

10-year prison terms on the first two counts and a 5-year consecutive term on the third count.

22

After serving his sentence, plaintiff began filing state and federal lawsuits raising various

23

challenges to his plea agreement and conviction. See, e.g., Gallegos v. Reinstein, No. CA-

24

CV-11-0135 (Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2011) (denying plaintiff’s second “motion for relief from

25

order denying withdraw plea of guilt no contest” [sic]); Gallegos v. State of Arizona, No.

26

CV-08-1877 (D. Ariz. Oct. 14, 2008). The case now before us is the latest in that line of

27

cases.

28

We have before us plaintiff’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea (doc. 4), motion for

1

order of civil trial (doc. 5) and motion to amend his complaint (doc. 15), state defendants’

2

response (doc. 16), and plaintiff’s reply (doc. 19). We also have defendant Connell’s motion

3

to dismiss (doc. 6), plaintiff’s response (doc. 12), and Connell’s reply (doc. 13); and state

4

defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 14), plaintiff’s response (doc. 17), and state defendants’

5

reply (doc. 18).

6

Plaintiff again asks to withdraw his 1989 no contest plea, complaining, among other

7

things, that it was involuntary and coerced. He again names as defendants a Superior Court

8

judge, two Superior Court commissioners, two probation officers, and a Maricopa County

9

sheriff. It is difficult to determine from reading plaintiff’s largely unintelligible complaint

10

and briefs exactly what he is alleging. The nature of the allegations changes from one

11

document to the next. It is clear, however, that plaintiff is once again challenging various

12

state court rulings. He acknowledges that he “has made several requests to withdraw Plea

13

in lower court but has been denied.” Motion to Withdraw Plea at 2.

14

We are without authority to review final state court decisions. Under the Rooker-

15

Feldman doctrine, absent express statutory authority, only the United States Supreme Court

16

has jurisdiction to review final decisions of state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257; District of

17

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983); Rooker v.

18

Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154

19

(9th Cir. 2003). In addition, to the extent that plaintiff asks us to collaterally consider

20

arguments previously dismissed in Gallegos v. State of Arizona, No. CV-08-1877 (D. Ariz.

21

Oct. 14, 2008), his claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

22

Plaintiff also seeks to amend his complaint, purportedly to correct the spelling of the

23

defendants names and to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. He attaches a proposed amended

24

complaint to his motion that fails to comply with LRCiv 15.1 because it does not indicate in

25

what respect it differs from the original complaint. In addition to failing to comply with the

26

local rules, however, plaintiff’s proposed amendments continue to assert various challenges

27

to final state court judgments, the review of which is not available in this court. Thus, the

28

proposed amendment would be futile and the motion to amend is denied.
-2-

1

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (doc. 4),

2

DENYING plaintiff’s motion for a civil trial (doc. 5), and DENYING plaintiff’s motion to

3

amend his complaint (doc. 15).

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendant Connell’s motion to dismiss

5

(doc. 6), and GRANTING the state defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 14). The clerk shall

6

enter final judgment.

7

We urge plaintiff to seek the advice of a lawyer before wasting his time and the

8

court’s resources on any further flawed filings. If he does not have a lawyer, he may wish

9

to contact the Lawyer Referral Service of the Maricopa County Bar Association at 602-257-

10
11

4434.
DATED this 27th day of June, 2012.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-