Patterson v. Pima County Sheriff's Department et al
Filing
26
ORDER ADOPTING 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Defendants Pima County Sheriffs Office and Sheriff Clarence Dupniks 8 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Defendant Pima County Sheriffs Office is DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendant Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is dismissed without prejudice. Defendants City of Tucson and Tucson City Attorney Michael Rankins 9 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Defendant Tucson City Attorney Michael Rankin is dismissed with prejudice. Defendant City of Tucson is dismissed with out prejudice. Plaintiff shall have 60 days to identify Deputies John/Jane Does 1 and 2, and to amend his complaint accordingly. The Clerk is directed to automatically dismiss this action without prejudice if Plaintiff does not comply with this instruction. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 11/5/14.(BAC)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Daniel Patterson,
No. CV-13-01779-TUC-RM (EJM)
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
ORDER
Pima County Sheriff’s Department, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) issued by
15
United States Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich that recommends granting Defendants’
16
Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Docs. 8 and 9). As explained by
17
Magistrate Judge Markovich, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief could
18
be granted.
19
conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Markovich, and in fact simply repeat what
20
Plaintiff submitted in opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s
21
objections are rejected and the Report and Recommendation is adopted.
As Plaintiff’s objections1 do not undermine the analysis and proper
22
After the dismissal of Defendants Pima County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Clarence
23
Dupnik, City of Tucson, and Tucson City Attorney Michael Rankin, only Defendants
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court notes that Plaintiff only objected as to the dismissal of his suit against
Tucson City Attorney Michael Rankin. (See Doc. 23.) Accordingly, Plaintiff waived his
right to de novo review of Magistrate Judge Markovich’s Report and Recommendation as
to the dismissal of Defendant Pima County Sheriff’s Office, Defendant Sheriff Clarence
Dupnik, and Defendant City of Tucson. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Regardless, this Court has reviewed Judge
Markovich’s Report and Recommendation in full and finds that it properly concludes that
each of the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss should be granted in their entirety.
1
Deputies Jane/John Doe 1 and 2 remain. Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
2
Procedure requires plaintiff to include the names of all parties in the action. As a
3
practical matter, it is impossible in most instances to serve a summons and complaint
4
upon an anonymous defendant.
5
The Ninth Circuit has held that where the identity of a defendant is unknown prior
6
to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through
7
discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not
8
uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.
9
Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti,
10
629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Here, discovery will not be a viable option to learn
11
the identities of Deputies Jane/John Does 1 and 2 because all named Defendants in this
12
case are to be dismissed. However, as Magistrate Judge Markovich noted in his Report
13
and Recommendation (Doc. 22), it is apparent that the identities of Deputies Jane/John
14
Does 1 and 2 are accessible through either a public records request or by obtaining a copy
15
of the affidavit of service filed in Plaintiff’s order-of-protection case. Accordingly,
16
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
17
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted and adopted;
18
(2) Defendants Pima County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s
19
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is granted. Defendant Pima County Sheriff’s Office is
20
dismissed with prejudice.
21
prejudice.
Defendant Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is dismissed without
(3) Defendants City of Tucson and Tucson City Attorney Michael Rankin’s
22
23
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is granted.
Defendant Tucson City Attorney Michael
24
Rankin is dismissed with prejudice. Defendant City of Tucson is dismissed without
25
prejudice.
26
....
27
....
28
....
-2-
1
(4) Plaintiff shall have 60 days to identify Deputies John/Jane Does 1 and 2, and to
2
amend his complaint accordingly. The Clerk is directed to automatically dismiss this
3
action without prejudice if Plaintiff does not comply with this instruction.
4
Dated this 5th day of November, 2014.
5
6
7
Honorable Rosemary Márquez
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?