Velazquez v. Logan et al

Filing 25

ORDER (Service Packet), Plaintiff's Motion to Seal 5 is granted; the Rule 65(b) Motion 6 must be filed under seal; Plaintiff's Rule 65(b) Motion 24 is denied without prejudice; Plaintiff's Objection to Removal 9 and Notice of S upplemental Authority and Arguments in Support of Objection for Removal 12 are denied; Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Judgment Re: Objection to Removal 10 is denied; Plaintiff's Notice of Non-Receipt of Responsive Pleading by Maricopa County Attorney; Request for Copy and Time to Reply 15 is denied as moot; Plaintiff's Rule 12(f) Motion 17 is denied; Plaintiff's Rule 4(m) Motion for Extension of Time or Suspension of Time Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A Screening 20 is granted; Plaintiff's Fifth Claim for Relief is dismissed without prejudice; Defendants Manos and Wilson are dismissed without prejudice; Defendants Maricopa County, Logan, McCloskey, and Hardy must answer Plaintiff's First, Second, Third, and Fourth Claims for Relief; the Clerk must send Plaintiff a service packet including the Amended Complaint (Doc. 1-1 at 21-47), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for Defendants McCloskey and Hardy; Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk within 21 days; this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E Aspey for all pretrial proceedings. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 10/27/14. (REW)

1

WO

MDR

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Juan Velazquez,

10
11
12

No. CV 14-00941-PHX-SPL (MEA)
Plaintiff,

vs.

ORDER

James Logan, et al.,

13
14

Defendants.

15
16

On March 20, 2014, Plaintiff Juan Velazquez, who is confined in the Maricopa

17

County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of Maricopa County

18

against Defendants James Logan, Michelle McCloskey, Tammy Hardy, Tom Manos,

19

Sandy Wilson, and Maricopa County. On April 1, he filed an Amended Complaint. On

20

May 2, Defendants Maricopa County, Wilson, and Manos (“Removing Defendants”)

21

filed a Notice of Removal.

22

On May 6, 2014, Removing Defendants and Defendant Logan filed a Notice

23

informing the Court that they were waiting for the Court to issue a screening order before

24

filing an answer to the Amended Complaint. On May 9, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Seal

25

(Doc. 5) and lodged under seal a Rule 65(b) Motion (Doc. 6). On May 23, Plaintiff filed

26

a “Response to Defendants[’] Screening Motion.”

27

On May 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Objection to Removal (Doc. 9). On June 4, he

28

filed a “Request for Entry of Judgment Re: Objection to Removal” (Doc. 10). On June

TERMPSREF

1

12, Removing Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Objection to Removal. On

2

June 24, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority and Arguments in Support of

3

Objection for Removal (Doc. 12). On June 26, Removing Defendants filed a Notice of

4

Receipt of Plaintiff’s Supplemental Arguments.

5

On July 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Non-Receipt of Responsive Pleading

6

by Maricopa County Attorney; Request for Copy and Time to Reply” (Doc. 15). On July

7

9, Removing Defendants filed a Notice of Service (Doc. 16), indicating that they had sent

8

Plaintiff another copy of their Opposition to his Objection to Removal. On July 21,

9

Plaintiff filed a Rule 12(f) Motion (Doc. 17), seeking to strike the Opposition. On July

10

23, Removing Defendants filed a Notice of Receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike. On

11

August 1, Plaintiff filed a Reply.

12

On August 1, 2014, Plaintiff also filed a Rule 4(m) Motion for Extension of Time

13

or Suspension of Time Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A Screening” (Doc. 20). On August

14

19, Removing Defendants filed a Response to the Motion). On August 20, Defendant

15

Logan filed a Response to the Rule 4(m) Motion.

16

I.

Removal, Objections, and Related Filings

17

In their Notice of Removal, Removing Defendants seek to remove this case

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1443, and 1446. They allege that Plaintiff’s Amended

19

Complaint alleges violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that

20

this action is “properly removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(c), 1443, and 1446(b).”

21

They claim that they and Defendant James Logan have executed waivers of service and

22

mailed them to Plaintiff, that Defendant Logan consents to removal and that, upon

23

information and belief, Defendants McCloskey and Hardy have not been served.

24

A state court defendant may remove to federal court any civil action brought in the

25

state court over which the federal district courts would have original jurisdiction. 28

26

U.S.C. § 1441(a). In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, among other things,

27

violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

28

jurisdiction extends to such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (a federal court has original

TERMPSREF

-2-

This Court’s

1

jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

2

United States”).

3

claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (court has supplemental jurisdiction over “all other

4

claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they

5

form part of the same case or controversy”). Removal, therefore, was proper pursuant to

6

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law

7

A.

8

In his Objection to Removal, Plaintiff raises three objections to removal. First, he

9

claims that Removing Defendants failed to obtain unanimity, as required by 28 U.S.C.

10

§ 1446(b). He contends that Defendants McCloskey and Hardy were served by first-class

11

mail to their last-known mailing addresses, that this constitutes proper service, and that

12

there is no unanimity because Defendants McCloskey and Hardy did not consent to

13

removal or join in the removal. Second, Plaintiff claims that Removing Defendants did

14

not cite to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 “with any particularity” and, therefore, it is improper for

15

Removing Defendants to rely on § 1443 as an “additional or independent basis for

16

removal.” Third, Plaintiff asserts that if the Court retains jurisdiction over the federal

17

claims in this lawsuit, the Court must stay this case to allow the state court to first

18

proceed with the state law claims. He alleges that the state court has a “primary and

19

strong interest in resolving this suit” because of “the fact-specific content, the parties

20

being sued and the State constitutional questions presented.”

Plaintiff’s Objections to Removal

21

In their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Objection, Removing Defendants allege that the

22

case was properly removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1443, and 1446, and that

23

Defendants McCloskey’s and Hardy’s consent to removal is not required because those

24

Defendants have not been properly served.

25

In his Notice of Supplemental Authority, Plaintiff alleges that Removing

26

Defendants did not provide a “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal,” as

27

required by § 1446(a), and that the statutes on which Removing Defendants rely—

28

§§ 1441(c), 1443, and 1446(b)—do not support removal.

TERMPSREF

-3-

1

In their Notice of Receipt of Plaintiff’s Supplemental Arguments, Removing

2

Defendants allege that they reviewed Plaintiff’s Notice of Supplemental Authority and

3

“determined that a supplement response is not required” because they “have already

4

provided a full response to Plaintiff’s objection.”

5

As explained in more detail below, Plaintiff’s objections do not justify remanding

6

this action. Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Objection and Notice of Supplemental

7

Authority.

8

1.

9

Defendants McCloskey’s and Hardy’s Consent was not
Required

10

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A), when a civil action is removed under 28

11

U.S.C. § 1441(a), “all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in

12

or consent to the removal of action.” In his Objection to Removal, Plaintiff alleges that

13

Defendants did not unanimously consent to removal because Defendants McCloskey and

14

Hardy were properly served and did not consent to removal.

15

document entitled “Acceptance of Service” (Doc. 1-1 at 8-9) that he filed in the Superior

16

Court. In that document, he states that he mailed Defendants McCloskey and Hardy, by

17

first-class mail, “a copy of the Complaint, Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of

18

Summers, and a Waiver of Service of Summons for signature and return. Plaintiff is

19

awaiting these responses and will notify the Court and other parties when these waivers

20

are returned or of any other result.”

Plaintiff relies on a

21

Rule 4.1(d) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure governs service on an

22

individual. Like Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4.1(d) requires

23

service “upon an individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed,” by

24

delivering a copy of the summons and complaint “to that individual personally,” by

25

leaving copies “at that individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with some

26

person of suitable age and discretion residing therein,” or by delivering copies “to an

27

agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.” Plaintiff

28

contends that both individuals were served by first-class mail delivered to their last

TERMPSREF

-4-

1

known mailing address. This is not an appropriate means of service under either Rule

2

4.1(d) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

3

Procedure.

4

Although both Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(c)(2)(B) and Federal Rule of

5

Civil Procedure 4(d)(1)(G) authorize a plaintiff to notify a defendant “by first-class mail

6

or other reliable means” of the commencement of the action and request that the

7

defendant waive service of the summons, a defendant is not required to waive service. If

8

a defendant does not waive service, then a plaintiff must properly serve the summons and

9

complaint. Larsen v. Mayo Med. Ctr., 218 F.3d 863, 867-868 (8th Cir. 2000) (if a

10

plaintiff seeks waiver of service, but “the defendant does not waive service, service has

11

not been effected”); Dietz v. Quality Loan Serv.e Corp. of Wash., 2014 WL 4546953, *1

12

(W.D. Wash. 2014) (“if the defendant does not return the waiver form, the plaintiff must

13

still serve the summons and complaint in a manner prescribed by Rule 4”); Kotzev v.

14

Ryan, 2011 WL 941333, *3 (D. Ariz. 2011) (“A request for waiver does not constitute

15

effective service.”); see also Lacey v. Malandro Commc’n, Inc., 2009 WL 4755399, *3

16

(D. Ariz. 2009) (under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, service was not effective until

17

defendants signed the waiver of service form); Jenkins v. State, 2008 WL 4356274, *1

18

n.1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008) (“a plaintiff is not relieved of the duty to effect service of

19

process merely because the defendant has not signed and returned the plaintiff’s request

20

for waiver of service”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Advisory Committee Notes to 1993

21

Amendments (“The revised rule is clear that, if the waiver is not returned and filed, . . .

22

the action will not otherwise proceed until formal service of process is effected.”).

23

Defendants McCloskey and Hardy did not waive service and Plaintiff did not properly

24

serve them pursuant to Rule 4.1 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 4 of the

25

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

26

In addition, Plaintiff’s reliance on Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 5(c)(2)(c) and

27

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(C) is misplaced. Both Rules govern the service

28

of papers other than the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(B) (noting that the rule

TERMPSREF

-5-

1

applies to “a pleading filed after the original complaint”); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5(a) (applying

2

the rule to “every pleading subsequent to the original complaint”); Morgan v. Foreman ex

3

rel. County of Maricopa, 973 P.2d 616, 618-19 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999) (“Rules 4 and 4.1,

4

rather than Rule 5, control the service of a complaint.”); see also Employee Painters’

5

Trust v. Ethan Enters., Inc., 480 F.3d 993, 995-96 (9th Cir. 2007) (“an amended

6

complaint can often be served [under Rule 5] if the original complaint is properly served

7

and the defendants appeared in the first instance”) (emphasis added).

8
9
10
11

Because Defendants McCloskey and Hardy were not properly served, Removing
Defendants were not required to obtain their consent to remove this action.
2.

Citation to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(c) and 1443 is Not Fatal

In his Objection, Plaintiff alleges that Removing Defendants did not cite to 28

12

U.S.C. § 1443 “with any particularity.”

13

Plaintiff alleges that Removing Defendants did not provide a “short and plain statement

14

of the grounds for removal” and that the statutes on which Removing Defendants rely—

15

§§ 1441(c), 1443, and 1446(b)—do not support removal.

In his Notice of Supplemental Authority,

16

“While it is the usual practice to cite the section of the United States Code under

17

which an action is removed, failure to cite the proper section in a petition for removal is

18

not a fatal defect where an adequate basis of removal is set forth.” Wormley v. Southern

19

Pac. Transp. Co., 863 F. Supp. 382, 385 (E.D. Tex. 1994); see also Harlem River

20

Produce Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 257 F. Supp. 160, 164 (S.D.N.Y. 1965) (“Failure

21

to cite the section under which removal is sought is not a fatal defect, and at most is a

22

technical defect where an adequate factual basis for removal is set forth”).

23

Section 1446(a) only requires “a short and plain statement of the grounds for

24

removal.” The Notice of Removal complies with that requirement because it states that

25

the Amended Complaint alleges violations of Plaintiff’s federal civil rights.

26

previously noted, the Court has jurisdiction over such claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and,

27

therefore, removal was appropriate under § 1441(a). Removing Defendants’ citation to

28

TERMPSREF

-6-

As

1

§§ 1441(c) and 1443, rather than § 1441(a), is, at most, a technical error, not a fatal

2

defect, and does not require remand.

3

3.

A Stay is Inappropriate

4

There is no need to stay this case to allow the state court to decide the state law

5

claims. The Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal law claims and will

6

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. This Court can

7

decide both the federal and state claims.

8

B.

9

In his Request for Entry of Judgment, Plaintiff requests that the Court remand this

Request for Entry of Judgment Re: Objection to Removal

10

case because there was no unanimous consent to removal.

11

rejected this claim, the Court will deny the Request for Entry of Judgment.

Because the Court has

12

C.

13

In his Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike, Plaintiff requests that the Court strike

14

Removing Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Objection to Removal and, as a result,

15

find that Removing Defendants have waived their opportunity to oppose remand of this

16

case, and remand the case.

Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike

17

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that

18

“[t]he court may order stricken from any pleading an insufficient defense or any

19

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”

20

(emphasis added). Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines “pleadings”

21

generally as complaints and answers. Thus, a motion to strike filed pursuant to Rule

22

12(f) only permits the Court to strike pleadings, not motions, responses, or other papers.

23

See Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983) (“Under the

24

express language of the rule, only pleadings are subject to motions to strike.”). Thus, the

25

Court will deny the Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)

26

D.

27

In his July 8, 2014 “Notice of Non-Receipt of Responsive Pleading by Maricopa

28

County Attorney; Request for Copy and Time to Reply,” Plaintiff states that he did not

TERMPSREF

Notice of Non-Receipt and Request for Copy and Time to Reply

-7-

1

receive a copy of Removing Defendants’ Opposition to his Objection to Removal and

2

requests that the Court order Removing Defendants to send him a copy of the Opposition

3

and provide him with an opportunity to reply to it.

4

Defendants filed a Notice indicating that they had sent Plaintiff another copy of their

5

Opposition. In lieu of a reply, Plaintiff filed his July 21, 2014 Rule 12(f) Motion to

6

Strike. Thus, the Court will deny as moot Plaintiff’s request in his Notice of Non-

7

Receipt.

8

II.

On July 9, 2014, Removing

Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

9

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

10

against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28

11

U.S.C. § 1915A(a).1 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff

12

has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon

13

which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

14

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2).

15

A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

16

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8

17

does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-

18

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

19

(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

20

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

21

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

22

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

23

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual

24
25
26
27
28

TERMPSREF

1

In his “Response to Defendants[’] Screening Motion,” Plaintiff takes issue with
the need for a screening order and also requests that he be given leave to amend if the
Court identifies defects in his Amended Complaint. Section 1915A(a) applies,
notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff originally filed in state court. See Wrinkles v.
Davis, 311 F. Supp. 2d 735, 737-738 (N.D. Ind. 2004). Accordingly, the Court will
proceed to screen the Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff wants to seek leave to amend his
Amended Complaint after receiving this Order, he must follow the procedures in Rule
15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 15.1.
-8-

1

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

2

for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible

3

claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw

4

on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s

5

specific factual allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must

6

assess whether there are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id.

7

at 681.

8

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed,

9

courts must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,

10

342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less

11

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v.

12

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).

13

III.

Amended Complaint

14

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following Defendants: Maricopa

15

County, Maricopa County Manager Tom Manos, Maricopa County Deputy Manager

16

Sandy Wilson, Office of Public Defense Services (OPDS) Director James Logan,

17

Michelle McCloskey, and Tammy Hardy.

18

Plaintiff alleges that he hired Defendants McCloskey and Hardy as a mitigation

19

specialist and private investigator, respectively, for the post-conviction portion of his

20

criminal case and provided them with private and confidential information and materials

21

(“materials”)2 and access to those materials. Because Plaintiff was transferred from

22

prison to jail to attend court proceedings and because Plaintiff needed access to his

23

materials that had been stored at the prison, a state court judge granted Plaintiff funds for

24
25
26
27
28

TERMPSREF

2

These materials include legal documents Plaintiff has filed with the courts; his
legal notes and strategies; notes he took while meeting with his attorneys and other
criminal defense personnel; law books, case law, scientific research materials, and notes
he took after reading these items; transcripts, police reports, investigative reports, and
medical and institutional records; correspondence between Plaintiff and his attorney and
other criminal defense personnel; copies of attorney notes and printed e-mails; logs of
correspondence and meetings with defense personnel; DVDs, VHS cassettes, and audio
cassettes; draft affidavits; and other documents regarding his criminal defense.
-9-

1

a private storage facility. The order for funding for a private storage facility was directed

2

to OPDS.

3

After a private storage facility was reserved, Plaintiff consented to Defendant

4

McCloskey obtaining Plaintiff’s materials from the prison and delivering them to the

5

storage facility. In February 2013, Defendants McCloskey and Hardy transferred the

6

materials to the storage facility. Defendants McCloskey and Hardy and Plaintiff’s then-

7

attorney were given access to the storage unit to get materials from the storage unit for

8

Plaintiff and return them to the storage unit.

9

The state court subsequently determined that there was a conflict of interest

10

between Plaintiff and his attorney and Plaintiff attempted to obtain his files3 from the

11

attorney and Defendants McCloskey and Hardy. Although the attorney gave Plaintiff’s

12

family members files, an access code to the storage facility, and a key to open the lock on

13

the storage unit, the attorney informed them that Defendant McCloskey had retained

14

some of Plaintiff’s materials and had not returned them the attorney and that Defendant

15

McCloskey also had a key to the storage unit.

16

On June 2, 2013, Plaintiff called Defendant McCloskey and left a message about

17

arranging a meeting so Plaintiff’s family members could pick up the materials Defendant

18

McCloskey had retained. Plaintiff spoke to Defendant McCloskey three days later and

19

Defendant McCloskey stated that she was speaking on behalf of herself and Defendant

20

Hardy and that they would not be returning any of the files or materials they had retained.

21

Defendant McCloskey stated that she had spoken to Defendant Logan, whom she referred

22

to as “Boss,” and that they had agreed that Plaintiff would need to obtain a court order to

23

obtain the files and materials. Plaintiff also attempted to obtain the storage unit key from

24

Defendant McCloskey.

25

Plaintiff filed a motion with the court seeking a return of the files and materials

26

retained by Defendants McCloskey and Hardy, but neither Defendant filed a response to

27
3

28

TERMPSREF

Plaintiff states that the attorney, Defendant McCloskey, and Defendant Hardy
were given files compiled by prior defense personnel and by Plaintiff, and also had
documents and information that were being contemporaneously developed.
- 10 -

1

the motion. However, Defendant McCloskey spoke to Plaintiff by phone and informed

2

him that she had spoken to Defendant Logan regarding the issue and they had agreed that

3

Defendant Logan would take possession of the storage unit key and the contents of the

4

storage unit. When Plaintiff attempted to dissuade Defendant McCloskey from doing

5

this, she became upset, yelled that she was not going to do what Plaintiff had asked,

6

stated that she was quitting the case, and yelled obscenities.

7

Plaintiff then contacted his sister, who made a three-way call to Defendant Logan.

8

Defendant Logan confirmed that he was taking control of the key and the storage unit and

9

that Plaintiff would need to obtain a court order to regain his materials. Plaintiff told

10

Defendant Logan that it was Defendant Logan who needed court authorization to take

11

Plaintiff’s materials.

12

Plaintiff’s former attorney for not making proper arrangements for Plaintiff’s materials,

13

asserted that he had the authority to determine to whom he would return the materials,

14

and claimed that Plaintiff or anyone else was prohibited from entering the storage unit.

15

However, records from the storage facility show that someone accessed the storage unit

16

after the phone call.

As an explanation for his actions, Defendant Logan blamed

17

Plaintiff filed a motion in the state court requesting that Defendant Logan return

18

his materials, Defendant Logan received a copy of the motion but did not respond, and,

19

due to the status of the case, the state court would not rule on the motion. Plaintiff sent

20

an e-mail to Defendants McCloskey and Hardy requesting that they inventory the

21

materials they had retained. Defendant McCloskey responded that she had given some of

22

the materials to Hardy to place in the storage unit, but had retained some other materials.

23

Defendant Hardy stated that she had none of Plaintiff’s materials because she had placed

24

them in the storage unit. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Hardy knew Defendant Logan

25

was intent on prohibiting Plaintiff from accessing the storage unit. Plaintiff also contends

26

that Defendants McCloskey and Hardy subsequently “provide[d] contradictory

27

statements and actions . . . and/or gained access to [the] storage unit.”

28

....

TERMPSREF

- 11 -

1

Defendant Hardy contacted Plaintiff’s new attorney to provide some of the

2

materials Defendant Hardy retained.

3

Defendants, but only Defendants McCloskey and Hardy replied. Defendants McCloskey

4

and Hardy admitted that they had placed Plaintiff’s materials in the storage unit

5

controlled by Defendant Logan and claimed to have no more of Plaintiff’s materials.

6

Plaintiff contends their responses are misleading, contradict their earlier actions and

7

responses to his requests, and do not identify when they last accessed the storage unit.

Plaintiff sent notices of claim to each of the

8

Plaintiff contends that he is the rightful owner of the materials, that Defendants

9

McCloskey and Hardy were granted special access to his materials, and that, at the end of

10

their employment with Plaintiff, abused their access by giving Plaintiff’s materials to the

11

government and knowingly providing assistance to the government in seizing and

12

controlling Plaintiff’s materials.

13

governmental position to seize and control Plaintiff’s materials and that he and

14

Defendants McCloskey and Hardy conspired or otherwise agreed to deprive Plaintiff of

15

his materials. Plaintiff contends that Defendants Manos and Wilson failed to properly

16

supervise Defendant Logan and ratified Defendant Logan’s actions because they refused

17

to take corrective action after they became aware of his actions.

Plaintiff claims Defendant Logan abused his

18

In his First Claim for Relief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Logan, without legal

19

authority, interfered with Plaintiff’s private affairs, in violation of the Fourth Amendment

20

and article II, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution, by taking possession of Plaintiff’s

21

materials, deciding what would happen to the materials and who could receive them, and

22

usurping Plaintiff’s decision-making abilities regarding his private affairs. In his Second

23

Claim for Relief, Plaintiff asserts that he was subjected to an unconstitutional seizure in

24

violation of the Fourth Amendment and article II, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution.

25

Plaintiff claims that he cannot access his materials because Defendants seized his

26

materials without a warrant or probable cause, that Defendants McCloskey and Hardy

27

were engaged in joint action with government officials, and that Defendants have to legal

28

right to retain the materials or keep them from Plaintiff.

TERMPSREF

- 12 -

1

In his Third Claim for Relief, Plaintiff asserts that he was denied procedural due

2

process in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and article II, section 4 of

3

the Arizona Constitution.

4

written notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before depriving him of his materials; there

5

was no basis for postponing the hearing until after the deprivation had occurred; his

6

possessory interests in his property were affected by their actions; and the procedures

7

used by Defendants posed an unnecessary and high risk of erroneous deprivation.

8
9

Plaintiff contends Defendants failed to provide him with

In his Fourth Claim for Relief, Plaintiff alleges violations of his substantive due
process rights.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Logan used his position to seize

10

Plaintiff’s materials without an implicit, express, or governmental interest; conspired with

11

Defendants McCloskey and Hardy to obtain a key to Plaintiff’s storage unit and assert

12

ownership and control over the storage unit and the materials in it, knowing that the state

13

court would not rule on any motion filed by Plaintiff; took advantage of Plaintiff’s low

14

socioeconomic position; and acted oppressively, tyrannically, arbitrarily, and in a

15

conscience-shocking manner. In his Fifth Claim for Relief, Plaintiff contends that he is

16

entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

17

Plaintiff also claims that Defendants Mano and Wilson ignored their fiduciary

18

responsibilities, chose not to get involved, and, by their indifference, acquiesced to,

19

condoned, and ratified Defendant Logan’s conduct. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant

20

Maricopa County is liable because Defendants Manos and Wilson have the authority to

21

set or terminate municipal plans and events and because Defendant Logan can

22

appropriate County resources and create and enforce policy on behalf of Maricopa

23

County.

24

In his Prayer for Relief, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary

25

damages, his costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

26

....

27

....

28

....

TERMPSREF

- 13 -

1

IV.

Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

2

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated claims against Defendants Maricopa

3

County, Logan, McCloskey, and Hardy in his First, Second, Third, and Fourth Claims for

4

Relief. The Court will require these Defendants to answer those claims.

5

V.

Failure to State a Claim

6

A.

7

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

8

520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey

9

v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a

10

liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the

11

claim that were not initially pled. Id. “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-

12

official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the

13

Constitution.”

14

conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of

15

his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).

Defendants Manos and Wilson

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676.

“A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply

16

Plaintiff contends that Defendants Manos and Wilson failed to properly supervise

17

Defendant Logan and ratified Defendant Logan’s actions by refusing to take corrective

18

action after they became aware of his actions. Plaintiff does not identify why Defendants

19

Manos and Wilson were responsible for supervising Defendant Logan’s actions, how or

20

when they failed to supervise Defendant Logan, how or when they became aware of his

21

action, or how or when they refused to take corrective action.

22

allegations are too vague and conclusory to state a claim against Defendants Manos and

23

Wilson, the Court will dismiss them without prejudice.

Because Plaintiff’s

24

B.

25

Plaintiff’s Fifth Claim for Relief is a request for injunctive relief, not a separate

26

ground for relief. Thus, the Court will dismiss it, without prejudice. If Plaintiff wants to

27

seek a preliminary injunction, he should do so by filing a motion pursuant to Rule 65(a)

28

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

TERMPSREF

Fifth Claim for Relief

- 14 -

1

VI.

Motion to Seal and Rule 65(b) Motion

2

A.

3

In his Motion to Seal, Plaintiff requests that his Rule 65(b) Motion be filed “under

4

seal/ex-parte” because it contains “confidential matters that are privileged” and that

5

“sealing the motion is appropriate because the motion and attachments contain sensitive

6

information in regards to the case.” The Court has reviewed the Rule 65(b) Motion and

7

the attachments and finds that none of the information contained therein is privileged or

8

sensitive information.

Motion to Seal

9

Ordinarily, if a request to file under seal is denied in full, the lodged document

10

will not be filed and “the submitting party may, within five (5) days of the entry of the

11

order denying the request, resubmit the document for filing in the public record.” LRCiv

12

5.6(e). In an effort to move this case forward and because the Rule 65(b) Motion is

13

deficient, the Court, it its discretion, will grant the Motion to Seal rather than require

14

Plaintiff to refile a deficient motion that will ultimately be denied. Moreover, the Court

15

finds no basis for filing this Order under seal because, in denying the Rule 65(b) Motion,

16

the Court makes no reference to the contents of the Rule 65(b) Motion.

17

B.

18

Whether to grant or deny a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary

19

injunction is within the Court’s discretion. See Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher, 605 F.2d

20

1130, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1979). A temporary restraining order can be issued without

21

notice

Rule 65(b) Motion

only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint show
that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to
the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to
give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

22
23
24
25
26

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) (emphasis added). See also LRCiv 65.1 (“Ex parte restraining

27

orders shall only issue in accordance with Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”).

28

....

TERMPSREF

- 15 -

1

Plaintiff has not shown that he will suffer irreparable injury before Defendants can

2

be heard in opposition. Because the Rule 65(b) fails to comply with Rule 65(b)(1), the

3

Court, in its discretion, will deny without prejudice the Rule 65(b) Motion. See LRCiv

4

65.1. See also American Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 321 (7th Cir. 1984)

5

(district court abused its discretion in granting ex parte temporary restraining order

6

“when there was no valid reason for proceeding ex parte and by disregarding the strict

7

procedural requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) for the issuance of such ex parte

8

orders”); Adobe Systems, Inc. v. South Sun Products, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 636 (S.D. Cal.

9

1999).

10

VII.

Rule 4(m) Motion for Extension of Time or Suspension of Time

11

In his Rule 4(m) Motion, Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to serve the un-

12

served Defendants until after the Court completes its statutory screening of the Amended

13

Complaint. The Court will grant the Rule 4(m) Motion. This Order will direct the

14

United States Marshal to serve Defendants McCloskey and Hardy and will provide

15

Plaintiff with information regarding the service procedure.

16

VIII. Warnings

17

A.

18

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with

19

Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion

20

for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in

21

dismissal of this action.

Address Changes

22

B.

23

Plaintiff must serve Defendants, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a

24

copy of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a

25

certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also,

26

Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See LRCiv

27

5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to

28

Plaintiff.

TERMPSREF

Copies

- 16 -

1

C.

2

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including

3

these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v.

4

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action

5

for failure to comply with any order of the Court).

6

IT IS ORDERED:

7
8

(1)

Possible Dismissal

Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 5) is granted. The Rule 65(b) Motion

(Doc. 6) must be filed under seal.

9

(2)

Plaintiff’s Rule 65(b) Motion is denied without prejudice.

10

(3)

Plaintiff’s Objection to Removal (Doc. 9) and Notice of Supplemental

11
12
13
14
15

Authority and Arguments in Support of Objection for Removal (Doc. 12) are denied.
(4)

Plaintiff’s “Request for Entry of Judgment Re: Objection to Removal”

(Doc. 10) is denied.
(5)

Plaintiff’s “Notice of Non-Receipt of Responsive Pleading by Maricopa

County Attorney; Request for Copy and Time to Reply” (Doc. 15) is denied as moot.

16

(6)

Plaintiff’s Rule 12(f) Motion (Doc. 17) is denied.

17

(7)

Plaintiff’s Rule 4(m) Motion for Extension of Time or Suspension of Time

18

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A Screening” (Doc. 20) is granted.

19

(8)

Plaintiff’s Fifth Claim for Relief is dismissed without prejudice.

20

(9)

Defendants Manos and Wilson are dismissed without prejudice.

21

(10)

Defendants Maricopa County, Logan, McCloskey, and Hardy must answer

22
23

Plaintiff’s First, Second, Third, and Fourth Claims for Relief.
(11)

The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the

24

Amended Complaint (Doc. 1-1 at 21-47), this Order, and both summons and request for

25

waiver forms for Defendants McCloskey and Hardy.4

26
27
28

TERMPSREF

4

Although an attorney has filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Defendant
Hardy, it is not clear whether Defendant Hardy has been served or has waived service.
- 17 -

1

(12)

Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court

2

within 21 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not

3

provide service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order.

4

(13)

If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or

5

complete service of the Summons and Amended Complaint on Defendants McCloskey

6

and Hardy within 120 days of the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing

7

of this Order, whichever is later, the action may be dismissed as to each Defendant not

8

served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i).

9
10
11

(14)

The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the

Amended Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use.
(15)

The United States Marshal must notify Defendants McCloskey and Hardy

12

of the commencement of this action and request waiver of service of the summons

13

pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to Defendants

14

must include a copy of this Order. The Marshal must immediately file signed waivers

15

of service of the summons.

16

undeliverable or is not returned by a Defendant within 30 days from the date the

17

request for waiver was sent by the Marshal, the Marshal must:

18

(a)

If a waiver of service of summons is returned as

personally serve copies of the Summons, Amended Complaint, and

19

this Order upon Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

20

Procedure; and

21

(b)

within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of

22

service for Defendant, along with evidence of the attempt to secure a waiver of

23

service of the summons and of the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service

24

upon Defendant. The costs of service must be enumerated on the return of service

25

form (USM-285) and must include the costs incurred by the Marshal for

26

photocopying additional copies of the Summons, Amended Complaint, or this

27

Order and for preparing new process receipt and return forms (USM-285), if

28

required. Costs of service will be taxed against the personally served Defendant

TERMPSREF

- 18 -

1

pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise

2

ordered by the Court.

3

(16)

A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and

4

Amended Complaint must return the signed waiver forms to the United States

5

Marshal, not the Plaintiff.

6

(17)

Defendants Maricopa County, Logan, McCloskey, and Hardy must answer

7

the Amended Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion within the time

8

provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

9

Procedure.

10

(18)

Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant by name on

11

whose behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, response, or other motion or

12

paper that does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed.

13

(19)

This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey pursuant to

14

Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as

15

authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

16

Dated this 27th day of October, 2014.

17
18

Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TERMPSREF

- 19 -