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-