Contine v. Credio et al

Filing 10

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9 ). Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1 -2 at 1-7) is dismissed with prejudice. The Court further finds, in its discretion, that Defendants are entitled to an award of reason able attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Application for an award of attorneys' fees shall be filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within ten business days of the filing of this Order. See document for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 06/05/2015. (ATD)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Zachary Contine, No. CV-15-00813-PHX-ESW Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Ronald Credio, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 The Court has considered Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) filed on May 12, 2015. No response has been filed. The matter is deemed submitted for decision. 1 17 LRCiv 7.2(i) provides that if counsel does not serve and file a timely responsive 18 memorandum to a motion, such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the granting 19 of the pending motion, and the Court may summarily dispose of the motion. Therefore, 20 the Court may summarily dispose of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. In addition, the 21 Court finds upon review of the public records provided in Defendants’ Motion to 22 Dismiss, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are barred as a matter of law on the basis 23 of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. 2 In addition, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state 24 a claim as a matter of law. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with 25 prejudice on the merits. 26 27 28 1 (Doc. 8). 2 The parties have consented to the exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction The Court may take judicial notice of public records. 1 Plaintiff previously litigated his current claim in Maricopa County Superior Court 2 CV 2013-001618. Final judgment was entered against Plaintiff in favor of the State of 3 Arizona and Arizona Department of Corrections on June 25, 2014. As employees of the 4 Arizona Department of Corrections, the named Defendants in this case are parties in 5 privity with the Arizona Department of Corrections for purposes of claim and issue 6 preclusion. See Corbett v. Manor Care of Am., Inc., 146 P.3d 1027, 1039 (Ariz. Ct. App. 7 2006). Defendants correctly set forth in their Motion to Dismiss the application of the 8 legal concepts of claim and issue preclusion to this case. Defendants further persuasively 9 set forth an analysis of how Plaintiff has failed to state a claim as a matter of law. 10 For the reasons set forth in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, 11 IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9). Plaintiff’s 12 Complaint (Doc. 1-2 at 1-7) is dismissed with prejudice. 13 The Court further finds, in its discretion, that Defendants are entitled to an award 14 of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Application for an award 15 of attorneys’ fees shall be filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 within ten business days of the filing of this Order. 17 Dated this 5th day of June, 2015. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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?