Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01617/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01617-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

HOWARD J. REUBEN, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:10-cv-01617 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

TERRY GODDARD, et al., ) [Re: Motions at Docket 10, 11, 12,)

) 16, and 28]

Defendants. )

)

I. MOTIONS PRESENTED

At docket 10, defendants Terry Goddard (“Goddard”), Lisa Wynn (“Wynn”),

Kenyada Corley (“Corley”), Celina Shepherd (“Shepherd”), and Kathleen Coffer

(“Coffer”; collectively “defendants”) move pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss

the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff

Howard J. Reuben (“Dr. Reuben”) opposes the motion at docket 20. No reply was filed. 

At docket 11, defendant Arizona Medical Board (“the Board”) moves to dismiss

the claims against it because it is not a sueable entity. The court will construe that

motion as made pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6). Dr. Reuben opposes the motion at

docket 20.

Case 2:10-cv-01617-JWS Document 37 Filed 02/18/11 Page 1 of 9
1

Doc. 1-1 at 2.

2

See id. at 3.

-2-

At docket 12, defendants Goddard, Wynn, Corley, Shepherd, and Coffer move to

dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with Arizona Revised Statute § 12-821.01. 

The court will construe that motion as made pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6). 

Dr. Reuben opposes the motion at docket 20.

At docket 16, Dr. Reuben moves pursuant to Federal Rule 41 to dismiss the

claims against defendant Corley. The motion is unopposed.

At docket 28, defendants David Greenberg (“Greenberg”) and Michael Sucher

(“Sucher”) move pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint for failure to

state a claim. Plaintiff opposes the motion at docket 33. Defendants’ reply is at

docket 34. 

Oral argument was not requested as to any motion and would not assist the

court.

II. BACKGROUND

Dr. Reuben is a medical doctor. On January 6, 2010, Dr. Reuben received a

letter from Corley, the Board’s Legal Coordinator, informing him that a case had been

opened “based on [a] complaint alleging [that Dr. Reuben] demonstrated mental health

issues.”1

 On the same day, the Board ordered that Dr. Reuben undergo psychiatric

assessment at the offices of Greenberg and Sucher. At some point prior to January 6,

Coffer, herself a medical doctor, had opined that based on the allegations a psychiatric

assessment would be appropriate.2

 On January 8, Dr. Reuben met with Corley and

Case 2:10-cv-01617-JWS Document 37 Filed 02/18/11 Page 2 of 9
3

Id. at 8.

4

Id. at 20.

5

Id. at 12.

6

Doc. 1 at 11.

-3-

Wynn, the Executive Director of the Arizona Medical Board, and requested a copy of the

complaint letter. Wynn refused to provide a copy. On January 12, Dr. Reuben received

a letter from Wynn explaining that the Board had received information that he had

“made threatening remarks against a third party.”3

 Dr. Reuben contends that the

allegation was fabricated.

Dr. Reuben wrote three letters to Wynn, only days apart, explaining the

abusiveness and impropriety of the Board’s conduct. When Dr. Reuben did not receive

a response, he began sending letters to Arizona Attorney General Goddard. The letters

described the purported illegality of the Board’s actions and indicated that Dr. Reuben

was aware of “secret laws” permitting discrimination against the mentally ill.4

After Dr. Reuben refused to submit to the ordered psychiatric assessment, he

received another letter from the Board, signed by Shepherd, an Assistant Manager in

the Case Management Office. The letter indicated that an investigation had been

opened for violation of a Board order.5

The Board ultimately dismissed the case and did not revoke Dr. Reuben’s

license.6

 On July 23, 2010, Dr. Reuben filed suit against Goddard, Wynn, Corley,

Shepherd, Coffer, Greenberg, Sucher, and the Board. Dr. Reuben seeks $10,000,000

for alleged due process violations based on vague charges, false charges, failure to

provide a copy of the complaint letter, and unprofessional medical opinions. 

Case 2:10-cv-01617-JWS Document 37 Filed 02/18/11 Page 3 of 9
7

Vignolo v. Miller, 120 F.3d 1075, 1077 (9th Cir. 1997).

8

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

9

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001).

10Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

11Id.

12Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)).

-4-

Dr. Reuben also asserts claims for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(“ADA”) and abuse of a protected person.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6), tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s claims. In reviewing such a

motion, “[a]ll allegations of material fact in the complaint are taken as true and

construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”7

 Dismissal for failure to

state a claim can be based on either “the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the

absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”8

 “Conclusory

allegations of law . . . are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.”9 To avoid

dismissal, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible

on its face.”10 “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.”11 “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability

requirement’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted

unlawfully.”12 “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent’ with a

defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of

Case 2:10-cv-01617-JWS Document 37 Filed 02/18/11 Page 4 of 9
13Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

14Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

15Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 699.

16Lee, 250 F.3d at 679.

17U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1.

-5-

entitlement to relief.’”13 “In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the nonconclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be

plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.”14

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Dr. Reuben’s Complaint Does Not Satisfy the Federal Pleading Standard

1. Dr. Reuben’s Due Process Claim is Deficient

A plaintiff’s complaint must state a cognizable legal theory.15 Dr. Reuben’s

complaint does not do so. His asserted due process violations are conclusory.16

Moreover, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a

deprivation of “life, liberty, or property.”17 Dr. Reuben has not pled facts supporting such

a deprivation. 

Dr. Reuben has not pled specific conduct on the part of the defendants that

would allow the court to draw a reasonable inference that defendants are liable for the

violations alleged. For instance, Dr. Reuben has not pled any conduct whatsoever on

the part of Shepherd. Shepherd did author one letter to Dr. Reuben, which was

attached to the complaint and indicated that the Board would be investigating

Dr. Reuben’s failure to submit to psychiatric assessment. It is unclear how Shepherd’s

conduct was at all improper. 

Case 2:10-cv-01617-JWS Document 37 Filed 02/18/11 Page 5 of 9
18Doc. 33 at 2.

19Id. at 3.

20Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Doe v. U.S., 58 F.3d 494,

497 (9th Cir. 1995)).

-6-

Similarly, no conduct is alleged on the part of Greenberg or Sucher. Although the

Board ordered Dr. Reuben to undergo a psychiatric assessment at their office,

Dr. Reuben never made an appointment. Dr. Reuben maintains that he believed that

Greenberg and Sucher were psychiatrists.18 Dr. Reuben’s belief does not give rise to a

legal claim. Dr. Reuben also contends that Greenberg and Sucher “owed him a doctorpatient duty to inform him of the fact that they were not psychiatrists.”19 Even if the law

imposed such a duty, Dr. Reuben was never a patient of theirs.

2. Dr. Reuben’s ADA Claim is Vague, Conclusory, and Unsupported

Dr. Reuben also claims that the defendants’ conduct violated the ADA. The facts

alleged in his complaint, however, do not raise Dr. Reuben’s prospect of relief beyond

the speculative level. Dr. Reuben’s complaint does not include citation to a single

section of the ADA, and its only reference is in the caption.

3. Leave to Amend

“[I]n dismissing for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), ‘a district court

should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made,

unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of

other facts.”20 Plaintiff has not requested leave to amend, and the court is highly

skeptical that additional facts will cure the complaint’s deficiencies. However,

Case 2:10-cv-01617-JWS Document 37 Filed 02/18/11 Page 6 of 9
21Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

22Kimball v. Shofsall, 494 P.2d 1357, 1359 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).

23See A.R.S. §§ 32-1401–1491.

24Cf. Kimball, 494 P.2d at 1359.

25A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A).

-7-

Dr. Reuben is proceeding pro se, and a “court should freely give leave [to amend] when

justice so requires.”21 

B. The Arizona Medical Board is Not a Proper Defendant

The Board argues that it is an entity that cannot be sued. The court agrees. 

“There are governmental administrative agencies which can sue and be sued.”22 The

Board is a governmental administrative agency, but it does not have that authority.

Although § 32-1453 permits judicial review of Board actions, no section gives the Board

the power to sue or be sued as a legal entity.23 Without such authority, the Board is not

a proper defendant.24

C. Arizona’s Notice of Claim Statute is Inapplicable to Dr. Reuben’s Federal

Claims

Defendants Goddard, Wynn, Shepherd, and Coffer move for dismissal on the

alternative ground that Dr. Reuben did not comply with Arizona’s notice of claim statute. 

Section 12-821.01 requires that any person with a claim against a public employee must

file notice of that claim with the public employee within 180 days of the claim’s accrual.25

Case 2:10-cv-01617-JWS Document 37 Filed 02/18/11 Page 7 of 9
26See Nored v. City of Tempe, 614 F. Supp. 2d 991, 998 (D. Ariz. 2008) (dismissing

plaintiff’s state law claims for failing to comply with § 12-821.01 while leaving plaintiff’s federal

claim intact).

27Fed R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(I).

28See doc. 16.

-8-

The notice of claim requirement only applies to state law claims.26 Dr. Reuben has not

pled any state law claims.

D. Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant Corley

Federal Rule 41(a) provides that a “plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court

order by filing . . . a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an

answer or a motion for summary judgment.”27 Although the proper vehicle is a notice of

dismissal–not a motion–it is clear that Dr. Reuben intended to dismiss Corley as a

defendant.28

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motions at dockets 10 and 28 to dismiss

the claims against Goddard, Wynn, Shepherd, Coffer, Greenberg, and Sucher are

GRANTED, and the claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to an amended

complaint. Any amended complaint must be filed within 14 days of this order.

Defendant Arizona Medical Board’s motion at docket 11 to dismiss the claims

against it is GRANTED, and the claims against the Arizona Medical Board are

DISMISSED.

Case 2:10-cv-01617-JWS Document 37 Filed 02/18/11 Page 8 of 9
-9-

Defendants’ motion at docket 12, to dismiss the claims against Goddard, Wynn,

Shepherd, and Coffer for failure to comply with Arizona’s notice of claim statute is

DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion at docket 16 to dismiss defendant Corley is construed as a

notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(I). The Clerk will please terminate

Kenyada Corley as a defendant.

DATED this 18th day of February 2011.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-01617-JWS Document 37 Filed 02/18/11 Page 9 of 9