Donahoe v. Arpaio, No. CV10–2756–PHX–NVW.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
Writing for the CourtNEIL V. WAKE
Citation869 F.Supp.2d 1020
PartiesGary DONAHOE and Cherie Donahoe, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph ARPAIO and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; Andrew Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R. Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy Chief David Hendershott and Anna Hendershott, husband and wife; Peter Spaw and Jane Doe Spaw, husband and wife; Maricopa County, a municipal entity; Jon Does I–X; Jane Does I–X; Black Corporations I–V; and White Partnerships I–V, Defendants. Susan Schuerman, Plaintiff, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants. Sandra Wilson and Paul Wilson, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants. Conley D. Wolfswinkel, a single man; Brandon D. Wolswinkel, a single man; Ashton A. Wolfswinkel, a single man; Vanderbilt Farms, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; ABCDW, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Stone Canyon, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Vistoso Partners, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; and W Harquahala, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants. Mary Rose Wilcox and Earl Wilcox, wife and husband, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants. Donald T. Stapley, Jr. and Kathleen Stapley, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants. Barbara Mundell, Plaintiff, v. Maricopa County, body politic of the State of Arizona; et al., Defendants.
Docket NumberNo. CV11–1921–PHX–NVW.,No. CV11–0473–PHX–NVW.,No. CV10–2758–PHX–NVW.,No. CV10–2757–PHX–NVW.,No. CV11–0902–PHX–NVW.,No. CV11–0116–PHX–NVW.,No. CV10–2756–PHX–NVW.
Decision Date09 April 2012

869 F.Supp.2d 1020

Gary DONAHOE and Cherie Donahoe, husband and wife, Plaintiffs,
v.
Sheriff Joseph ARPAIO and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; Andrew Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R. Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy Chief David Hendershott and Anna Hendershott, husband and wife; Peter Spaw and Jane Doe Spaw, husband and wife; Maricopa County, a municipal entity; Jon Does I–X; Jane Does I–X; Black Corporations I–V; and White Partnerships I–V, Defendants.

Susan Schuerman, Plaintiff,
v.
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants.

Sandra Wilson and Paul Wilson, husband and wife, Plaintiffs,
v.
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants.

Conley D. Wolfswinkel, a single man; Brandon D. Wolswinkel, a single man; Ashton A. Wolfswinkel, a single man; Vanderbilt Farms, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; ABCDW, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Stone Canyon, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Vistoso Partners, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; and W Harquahala, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiffs,
v.
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants.

Mary Rose Wilcox and Earl Wilcox, wife and husband, Plaintiffs,
v.
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants.

Donald T. Stapley, Jr. and Kathleen Stapley, husband and wife, Plaintiffs,
v.
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants.

Barbara Mundell, Plaintiff,
v.
Maricopa County, body politic of the State of Arizona; et al., Defendants.

Nos. CV10–2756–PHX–NVW, CV10–2757–PHX–NVW, CV10–2758–PHX–NVW, CV11–0116–PHX–NVW, CV11–0473–PHX–NVW, CV11–0902–PHX–NVW, CV11–1921–PHX–NVW.

United States District Court,
D. Arizona.

April 9, 2012.


[869 F.Supp.2d 1033]


Lawrence J. Wulkan, M. Elizabeth Nillen, Michael C. Manning, Stefan Mark Palys, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Kenneth B. Vaughn, Merwin D. Grant, Grant & Vaughn PC, Colin F. Campbell, Kathleen Erin Brody Omeara, Osborn Maledon PA, Phoenix, AZ, Lawrence C. Wright, Wright & Associates, Mesa, AZ, Shannon Marie Eagan, Stephen C. Neal, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Daryl A. Audilett, Kimble Nelson Audilett & Kastner PC, Tucson, AZ, Donald Wilson, Jr., Richard E. Chambliss, Sarah Lynn Barnes, Broening Oberg Woods & Wilson PC, Barry Matthew Markson, Caleb Saul Lihn, Thomas Thomas & Markson PC, Nicole Suzanne Kaseta, Rebeca Hoeffer Moskowitz, Steven A. Lamar, Beer & Toone PC, Phoenix, AZ, Douglas V. Drury, James Paul Mueller, Mueller & Drury PLLC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendants.


ORDER

NEIL V. WAKE, District Judge.
+-------------------+
                ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS ¦
                +-------------------¦
                ¦ ¦
                +-------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------+
                ¦I. ¦SUMMARY OF COUNTS TO BE DISMISSED ¦1034¦
                +---+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +---+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦II.¦BACKGROUND FACTS ¦1035¦
                +----------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦A.¦Wilcox Complaint ¦1036¦
                +----+--+----------------------------------+----¦
                ¦ ¦B.¦Mundell Complaint ¦1038¦
                +----+--+----------------------------------+----¦
                ¦ ¦C.¦Donahoe Complaint ¦1041¦
                +----+--+----------------------------------+----¦
                ¦ ¦D.¦Schuerman Complaint ¦1044¦
                +----+--+----------------------------------+----¦
                ¦ ¦E.¦Wilson Complaint ¦1046¦
                +----+--+----------------------------------+----¦
                ¦ ¦F.¦Stapley Complaint ¦1048¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+
                
+---+
                ¦¦ ¦¦
                +---+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦III. ¦LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTIONS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. (12)(B)(6)¦1051 ¦
                +------+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +------+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦IV. ¦CIVIL RICO COMPLAINT ¦1052 ¦
                +------+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +------+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦V. ¦ANALYSIS OF RULE 12(B)(6) MOTIONS ¦1053 ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+--------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦A. ¦Wrongful Institution of Civil Proceedings¦1054 ¦
                +--------------------------------------------------------+
                
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Absolute Immunity for Federal Civil RICO Filing¦1054 ¦
                +-----+---+---+-----------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Non–Immunity Challenges ¦1057 ¦
                +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦B.¦Malicious Prosecution ¦1057¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Immunity as to Prosecutorial or Investigative ¦1057 ¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Functions ¦ ¦
                +------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Non–Immunity Challenges ¦1059 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦C. ¦Abuse of Process ¦1060 ¦
                +-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦ ¦D. ¦Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress¦1061 ¦
                +-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦ ¦E. ¦Defamation ¦1061 ¦
                +-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦ ¦F. ¦False Light Invasion of Privacy ¦1063 ¦
                +-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦ ¦G. ¦Intrusion Upon Seclusion ¦1064 ¦
                +-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦ ¦H. ¦False Arrest ¦1064 ¦
                +-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦ ¦I. ¦Violations of Arizona's Racketeering Statute¦1065 ¦
                +-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦ ¦J. ¦Violations of the Arizona Constitution ¦1067 ¦
                +-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦ ¦K. ¦Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ¦1067 ¦
                +------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Qualified Immunity ¦1067 ¦
                +------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech Rights ¦1069 ¦
                +------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦3. ¦Unlawful Search ¦1070 ¦
                +------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦4. ¦Substantive Due Process ¦1072 ¦
                +------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦5. ¦Retaliation for Exercise of Fifth and Fourteenth ¦1072 ¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Amendment Rights ¦ ¦
                +------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦6. ¦Equal Protection ¦1073 ¦
                +------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦7. ¦Conspiracy to Violate Constitutional Rights ¦1074 ¦
                +------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦8. ¦Unconstitutional Policies, Customs, Failure to Train,¦1075 ¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and Negligent Supervision ¦ ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+---+
                ¦¦ ¦¦
                +---+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦VI. ¦MOTIONS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 8 ¦1076 ¦
                +-----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +-----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦VII. ¦DEFENDANT SPAW'S MOTION TO DISMISS ¦1076 ¦
                +-----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +-----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦VIII.¦LEAVE TO AMEND ¦1077 ¦
                +-----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +-----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦IX. ¦ORDER ¦1078 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------+
                

[869 F.Supp.2d 1034]

Pending before the Court are multiple motions to dismiss the amended complaints filed by Plaintiffs in this action: Defendant Maricopa County's Partial Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaints of Plaintiffs Stapley, Donahoe and Wilson (Doc. 270); Thomas Defendants' Consolidated Motion to Dismiss Claims in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaints Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), as the Claims are Barred by Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity (Doc. 271); Defendants Arpaios' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCivP 8, 10, and 12(b)(6) Applicable Collectively to the Newly Amended Complaints Filed by Plaintiffs Donahoe, Mundell, Schuerman, Stapley, Wilcox, and Wilson (Doc. 283); Defendants Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R. Pestalozzi's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaints Pursuant to Rules 8(a)(2), 8(d)(1) (as to Plaintiffs Wilcox, Mundell and Stapley) and 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as to Plaintiffs Wilcox, Mundell, Stapley, Wilson, Schuerman, and Donahoe) (Doc. 284); and Defendants Peter and Mary Spaw's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 315).

The Court heard argument on the motions on February 10, 2012 (Doc. 335). For the reasons stated below, the motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. SUMMARY OF COUNTS TO BE DISMISSED

In summary, the following claims of each complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend:

A. Wilcox Complaint

Count 5: Violations of the Arizona Constitution except for free speech claim under Article II, § 6

Count 7: as to claims for substantive due process, abuse of process, abuse of power, and equal protection only

Count 9:42 U.S.C. § 1983: Conspiracy to Violate Constitutional Rights

B. Mundell Complaint

Count 1: Abuse of Process

Count 3: False Light Invasion of Privacy

Count 6: as to claims for privileges and immunities, abuse of process,

[869 F.Supp.2d 1035]

and false light only;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 practice notes
  • Donahoe v. Arpaio, Nos. CV–10–02756–PHX–NVW, CV–11–0902–PHX–NVW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • December 5, 2013
    ...be granted in part and denied in part.I. SUMMARY OF RULINGS The allegations underlying this dispute are set forth in Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D.Ariz.2012), aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir.2013). They describe an extended criminal and civil campaign ......
  • United States v. Cnty. of Maricopa, No. CV–12–00981–PHX–ROS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • June 15, 2015
    ...that immunity merely because it may be desirable for some policy reason.”).Arpaio cites Donahoe v. Arpaio in support of his position. 869 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D.Ariz.2012) aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir.2013). In Donahoe, Arpaio had filed suit against various Maricop......
  • Casavelli v. Johanson, No. CV-20-00497-PHX-JAT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • December 23, 2020
    ...These actions simply reflect a functioning legal practice, however, and the practice of law is not racketeering. Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1053 (D. Ariz. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2013). Even if Plaintiffs properly assert claims of fo......
  • Donahoe v. Arpaio, No. CV-10-02756-PHX-NVW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • December 5, 2013
    ...granted in part and denied in part.I. SUMMARY OF RULINGS The allegations underlying this dispute are set forth in Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (D. Ariz. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2013). They describe an extended criminal and civil campaig......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
37 cases
  • Donahoe v. Arpaio, Nos. CV–10–02756–PHX–NVW, CV–11–0902–PHX–NVW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • December 5, 2013
    ...be granted in part and denied in part.I. SUMMARY OF RULINGS The allegations underlying this dispute are set forth in Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D.Ariz.2012), aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir.2013). They describe an extended criminal and civil campaign ......
  • United States v. Cnty. of Maricopa, No. CV–12–00981–PHX–ROS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • June 15, 2015
    ...that immunity merely because it may be desirable for some policy reason.”).Arpaio cites Donahoe v. Arpaio in support of his position. 869 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D.Ariz.2012) aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir.2013). In Donahoe, Arpaio had filed suit against various Maricop......
  • Casavelli v. Johanson, No. CV-20-00497-PHX-JAT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • December 23, 2020
    ...These actions simply reflect a functioning legal practice, however, and the practice of law is not racketeering. Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1053 (D. Ariz. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2013). Even if Plaintiffs properly assert claims of fo......
  • Donahoe v. Arpaio, No. CV-10-02756-PHX-NVW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • December 5, 2013
    ...granted in part and denied in part.I. SUMMARY OF RULINGS The allegations underlying this dispute are set forth in Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (D. Ariz. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2013). They describe an extended criminal and civil campaig......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Part two: case summaries by major topic.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly Nbr. 58, January 2014
    • January 1, 2014
    ...either a payment plan or community service. (Hidalgo County Jail, Texas) U.S. District Court EMPLOYEE QUALIFICATIONS Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D.Ariz. 2012). In consolidated cases, members of a county board of supervisors, county staff, and judges of county courts, brought acti......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT