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
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.
Decision Date09 April 2012
Docket NumberCV11-1921-PHX-NVW,CV10-2757-PHX-NVW,CV11-0116-PHX-NVW,CV11-0473-PHX-NVW,CV10-2758-PHX-NVW,No. CV10-2756-PHX-NVW,CV11-0902-PHX-NVW

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.

No. 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 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dated: April 9, 2012


ORDER

Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY OF COUNTS TO BE DISMISSED.......................................................1

II. BACKGROUND FACTS ........................................................................................... 3

A. Wilcox Complaint.................................................................................................. 4
B. Mundell Complaint................................................................................................ 8
C. Donahoe Complaint ............................................................................................. 12
D. Schuerman Complaint..........................................................................................17
E. Wilson Complaint................................................................................................ 20
F. Stapley Complaint................................................................................................ 24

III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTIONS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. (12)(B)(6).......30

IV. CIVIL RICO COMPLAINT ..................................................................................... 30

V. ANALYSIS OF RULE 12(B)(6) MOTIONS...........................................................34

A. Wrongful Institution of Civil Proceedings...........................................................35
1. Absolute Immunity for Federal Civil RICO Filing..........................................35

Page 3

2. Non-Immunity Challenges ............................................................................... 38
B. Malicious Prosecution.......................................................................................... 39
1. Immunity as to Prosecutorial or Investigative Functions................................. 40
2. Non-Immunity Challenges ............................................................................... 43
C. Abuse of Process.................................................................................................. 44
D. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ........................................................ 45
E. Defamation ........................................................................................................... 46
F. False Light Invasion of Privacy........................................................................... 49
G. Intrusion Upon Seclusion..................................................................................... 50
H. False Arrest .......................................................................................................... 51
I. Violations of Arizona's Racketeering Statute.........................................................52
J. Violations of the Arizona Constitution ................................................................... 55
K. Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ..........................................................................55
1. Qualified Immunity..........................................................................................56
2. Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech Rights................................................58
3. Unlawful Search...............................................................................................60
4. Substantive Due Process...................................................................................63
5. Retaliation for Exercise of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.............64
6. Equal Protection...............................................................................................66
7. Conspiracy to Violate Constitutional Rights.................................................... 67
8. Unconstitutional Policies, Customs, Failure to Train, and Negligent Supervision ................................................................................................................ 68

VI. MOTIONS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 8....................................................................70

VII. DEFENDANT SPAW'S MOTION TO DISMISS...................................................71

VIII. LEAVE TO AMEND................................................................................................72

IX. ORDER.....................................................................................................................73

Page 4

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

Page 5

• Count 6: as to claims for privileges and immunities, abuse of process, and false light only; and defamation as to Aubuchon only
C. Donahoe Complaint
• Count 6: as to claims for false light only
• Count 7: as to claims for false light only
• Count 8: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Substantive Due Process
• Count 11: Intrusion Upon Seclusion in Violation of Arizona Law
• Count 13: Violations of Arizona's Racketeering Statute, A.R.S. § 13-2314.04
D. Schuerman Complaint
• Count 3: Abuse of Process in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Arizona Law
• Count 4: for claim for defamation as to Aubuchon only
• Count 5: for claim for defamation as to Aubuchon only
• Count 9: Violations of Arizona's Racketeering Statute, A.R.S. § 13-2314.04
E. Wilson Complaint
• Count 1: as to claims for abuse of process only
• Count 3: as to claims for abuse of process only
• Count 5: as to claims for false light only
• Count 6: as to claims for false light only
• Count 7: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Substantive Due Process
• Count 11: Violations of Arizona's Racketeering Statute, A.R.S. § 13-2314.04.
F. Stapley Complaint
• Count 2: as to claims grounded directly on criminal prosecution only
• Count 5: as to claims
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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