Mulligan v. Grace

Decision Date10 May 1983
Docket NumberCA-CIV,No. 1,1
Citation136 Ariz. 483,666 P.2d 1092
PartiesE. Francis MULLIGAN and Gloria Mulligan, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Jack GRACE, County Attorney, and Coconino County Government, Defendants/Appellees. 6216.
CourtArizona Court of Appeals
E. Francis Mulligan, in pro. per
OPINION

BIRDSALL, Judge.

This appeal is from the dismissal of the plaintiffs/appellants' second amended complaint on the ground it failed to state a claim since the defendant county attorney was immune from liability. We affirm.

Appellant E. Francis Mulligan was convicted in 1979 on arson and insurance fraud charges. The convictions and sentences were appealed and affirmed in State v. Mulligan, 126 Ariz. 210, 613 P.2d 1266 (1980). He was ordered to repay Coconino County the cost of his legal services. A writ of execution was subsequently obtained by Coconino County Attorney Jack Grace, and a lis pendens was recorded on appellants' property. The property was subsequently sold and the debt satisfied. On August 31, 1979, appellants filed their original complaint against Grace. An amended complaint was filed on June 12, 1980, and Grace thereupon filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S. The motion was granted, but appellants were permitted to file their second amended complaint on April 17, 1981, the caption of which reads: "E. FRANCIS MULLIGAN, et. ux, Plaintiffs, vs. JACK GRACE, County Attorney, COCONINO COUNTY GOVERNMENT, et. al., Defendant [sic]." Grace remained the only defendant who had been served and who ever appeared. He again moved to dismiss, the motion being granted on January 7, 1982. 1

The second amended complaint reads as follows:

"COMES NOW E. Francis Mulligan and Gloria Mulligan with their amended complaint before the Court.

That as so stated in the original complaint Jack Grace acting in behalf of Coconino County and under direct orders from Coconino County Government did violate Gloria Mulligan's and E. Francis Mulligan's rights by willfully and acting in bad faith remove from them their only vehicle under a Writ of Les (sic) Pendens. And, then still acting in bad faith did violate their rights by placing an illegal lien against their home. And, still with malide did violate their rights under the Constitution of the State and the Land by forcing Gloria Mulligan and her five children out of Coconino County for the purpose of insuring that E. Francis Mulligan would not return to publish his newspaper and practice his right under the Constitution, that of free speech, a direct violation of the first amendment.

TO WIT, the Coconino County Government has acted in bad faith and has violated the Mulligan's rights under the Arizona and U.S. Constitution."

Judgment should be entered for a defendant when a complaint fails to state a claim. Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., 102 Ariz. 312, 428 P.2d 990 (1967). Grace was acting in his official capacity when performing the acts complained of. He was relying on a judgment affirmed by the state supreme court, and all questions raised by appellants, and all those that might have been raised, were to be regarded as finally adjudicated. State v. Griffith, 54 Ariz. 436, 96 P.2d 752 (1939). In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), the United States Supreme Court stated that the common law immunity of a prosecutor when acting within...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Donahoe v. Arpaio
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • April 9, 2012
    ...Inc. v. State ex rel. Corbin, 138 Ariz. 200, 673 P.2d 944 (Ct.App.1983); Butz, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894;Mulligan v. Grace, 136 Ariz. 483, 666 P.2d 1092 (Ct.App.1983)).) 10. The foregoing analysis applies to Thomas's assertions that absolute immunity with respect to his actions related to......
  • Morgan v. Cochise Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • September 16, 2020
    ...§ 12-820.01(A)(1) & (5) ); State v. Superior Court, 186 Ariz. 294, 921 P.2d 697, 700 (Ariz. App. 1996) ; Mulligan v. Grace , 136 Ariz. 483, 666 P.2d 1092, 1094 (Ariz. App. 1983) ; Challenge, Inc. v. Arizona, 138 Ariz. 200, 673 P.2d 944, 948 (Ariz. App. 1983) ).The Defendants’ assertion of a......
  • Hauser v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • June 3, 2021
    ...Thus, the liability of the employer "depend[s] on the necessary finding of liability on the part of [his] agent." Mulligan v. Grace, 666 P.2d 1092, 1094 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). The Yavapai County deputies are county employees, and, as discussed above, the County Sheriff is responsible for Ya......
  • Johnson v. Brady
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • January 28, 2015
    ...of the La Paz County Defendants "would depend on the necessary finding of liability on the part of their agent." Mulligan v. Grace, 666 P.2d 1092, 1094 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). The only two possible agents of the La Paz County Defendants are Defendants Tony Rogers and Robin Puchek.4 Because t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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