Hauser v. Smith

• Decision Date: 03 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. CV 20-08138-PCT-JAT (JFM),CV 20-08138-PCT-JAT (JFM)
• Parties: Carolin Isabelle Hauser, Plaintiffs, v. Elijah M. Smith, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Arizona

Carolin Isabelle Hauser, Plaintiffs, v. Elijah M. Smith, et al., Defendants.

No. CV 20-08138-PCT-JAT (JFM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

June 3, 2021

ORDER

Plaintiff Carolin Isabelle Hauser brought this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, various federal criminal statutes, and state law against State Attorney General Mark Brnovich, 19 Yavapai County officials,¹ and 3 employees from the State Bar of Arizona.² (Doc. 37.) Before the Court are the following motions:

• Defendant Mark Brnovich's Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. 67);

• State Bar of Arizona Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim (Doc. 82); • Yavapai County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. 83);

• Yavapai County Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Surresponse (Doc. 97); and

• State Bar of Arizona Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Surresponse (Doc. 98).

The Court will grant the Motions to Strike, grant Brnovich's Motion to Dismiss, grant the State Bar of Arizona Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and grant in part and deny in part the Yavapai County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

I. Background

In her 106-page First Amended Complaint, Hauser sets forth 26 causes of action against the named Defendants. (Doc. 33.) Hauser's claims stem from an incident on the morning of December 14, 2019, when she called 9-1-1 for assistance during a domestic dispute on her property in Rimrock, Arizona. (Id. ¶ 1.) Hauser alleges that Yavapai County Sheriff's deputies Smith and Eller responded and interrogated her. (Id. ¶¶ 1-2.) Deputy Mickel arrived and stood by during this interrogation. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.)

At one point, Smith asked Hauser to get into his patrol car, and when Hauser said that she did not want to, Smith told her she was under arrest. (Id. ¶ 7.) Hauser then ran toward her daughter and fiancé, who were on the scene, and Smith suddenly grabbed Hauser's arms behind her back and tackled her, which caused her to hit the gravel face first. (Id. ¶ 8.) Smith, Mickle, and Eller were all on top of Hauser, slamming her face down in the gravel, and the force resulted in life-threatening esophageal injuries and pneumomediastinum (abnormal presence of air or gas in the membrane between the lungs). (Id. ¶¶ 8, 26, 28, 30-31.) Smith took Hauser to the Camp Verde Jail, where she was held from approximately 8:50 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 21.)

After her release, Hauser went to Verde Valley Medical Center in Cottonwood for emergency treatment, and she was eventually transported via ambulance to the Flagstaff Medical Center. (Id. ¶¶ 22-25.)

Hauser asserts claims for false arrest and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Id. ¶¶ 77-95), and claims under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), for negligent training and supervision and "unconstitutional ratification of illegal conduct." (Id. ¶¶ 96-104.) Hauser alleges that Defendants committed criminal and seditious conspiracy and treason and acted as agents of foreign principals and as a "de factor corporate state." (Id. ¶¶ 105-159.) She further alleges that Defendants violated commitments for United States' contributions to international financial institutions (Id. ¶¶ 160-163); acted as agents of international criminal police organizations (Id. ¶¶ 164-167); and violated federal criminal statutes and laws related to foreign relations (Id. ¶¶ 168-191, 211-215). Finally, Hauser asserts state law claims of battery, negligence, and negligent training/supervision. (Id. ¶¶ 192-210.) In her Prayer for Relief, Hauser seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive relief in the form of remedying unconstitutional statutes and policies, costs and fees, and any other relief deemed proper. (Id. at 48-49.)

Brnovich and the Yavapai County Defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim (Docs. 67, 83), and the State Bar of Arizona Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. (Doc. 82.)

II. Motions to Strike

After the parties fully briefed the above Motions to Dismiss, Hauser filed surresponses to each of the three Motions. (Docs. 92-93, 95.) The State Bar of Arizona Defendants and the Yavapai County Defendants each move to strike the surresponse filed in response to their Motions. (Docs. 97-98.)

Surresponses are not authorized by the Federal or Local Rules of Civil Procedure absent prior leave of the Court. See Padilla v. Bechtel Const. Co., No. CV 06-286-PHX-LOA, 2007 WL 625927, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 27, 2007). Hauser's surresponses were improper because they were filed without leave of the Court. Further, because Defendants did not submit any new evidence with their respective Replies, this is not aninstance were surresponses would be warranted. The Motions to Strike will therefore be granted.

III. Yavapai County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

Dismissal of a complaint, or any claim within it, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either a "'lack of a cognizable legal theory' or 'the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.'" Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). In determining whether a complaint states a claim under this standard, the allegations in the complaint are taken as true and the pleadings are construed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 2007). A pleading must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). But "[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what . . . the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (internal quotation omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must state a claim that is "plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

A motion to dismiss is based on the pleadings, and if a court considers evidence outside the pleadings, it must normally convert the Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b); United States v. Richie, 342 F.3d 903, 907-08 (9th Cir. 2003). "A court may, however, consider certain materials—documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice—without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment." Id. at 908.

B. Discussion

The Yavapai County Defendants argue that Hauser cannot assert a private right of action based on the federal statutes cited in Causes of Action Five through Twenty-two and Twenty-six. (Doc. 83 at 13-14.) They also argue that Hauser fails to state a claim for false arrest or excessive force against Smith, Mickle, or Eller in Causes of Action One and Two; that she fails to state a claim for failure to train/supervise or for ratification against the remaining Yavapai County Defendants; that all Yavapai County Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; and that Hauser failed to serve a Notice of Claim as required under state law for her claims in Causes of Action Twenty-three through Twenty-five. (Id. at 2-13, 14-15.)

1. Causes of Action Five through Twenty-two and Twenty-six

The claims asserted in Causes of Action Five through Twenty-two and Twenty-six are brought under various federal criminal statutes. (Doc. 33.) Federal criminal statutes provide no basis for civil liability. See Sears v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, No. 2:19-cv-01196-JAD-VCF, 2019 WL 3502890 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2019) (a plaintiff cannot bring criminal claims in a civil action). Other federal statutes cited by Hauser are completely inapplicable and fail to establish a basis for or jurisdiction over her claims. Accordingly, the Yavapai County Defendants' Motion will be granted as to the following Causes of Action:

• Fifth Cause of Action under 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy). See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (18 U.SC. § 241 provides no basis for civil liability).

• Sixth Cause of Action under 18 U.S.C. § 2381 (treason). See Ponvanit v. Superior Court of California, No. CV 17-4054-FMO (JEM), 2018 WL 1135380, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (18 U.S.C. § 2381 is criminal statute for which there is no private right of action), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 17-4054-FMO (JEM), 2018 WL 1135502 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2018).

• Seventh and Eighth Causes of action under 28 U.S.C. § 2384 (seditious conspiracy/advocating overthrow of government). See Suter v. Denton, No. 3:18-cv-01988-N, 2019 WL 5887290, at *4 (N.D. Texas July 16, 2019) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 2384 does not provide jurisdiction for civil action as criminal statutes cannot be enforced by civil action).

• Ninth Cause of Action under 18 U.S.C. § 219 (acting as agents of foreign principals).

• Tenth Cause of Action under 18 U.S.C. § 912 (impersonating United States officer). See Frison v. Zebro, 339 F.3d 994, 998-1000 (8th Cir. 2003) (no private right of action for violation of proscription against impersonating federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 912).

• Eleventh Cause of Action under 18 U.S.C. § 2 (punishable as principal for offense against the United States).

• Twelfth Cause of Action under 22 U.S.C. § 611 (Foreign Agents Registration Act). See Comm. for a Free Namibia v. South West Africa People's Org., 544 F. Supp. 722,...