Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02574/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02574-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Carlene Crenshaw-Bruce, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Mesa Police Department, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-02574-PHX-DGC

 ORDER 

 Defendant Mesa Police Department has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 23. The motion is fully 

briefed and no party has requested oral argument. For the reasons that follow, the Court 

will grant the motion. 

I. Background. 

Plaintiff was arrested by Mesa Police Department on March 9, 2010 for violating 

an order of protection, resisting arrest, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Doc. 7 at 5. 

Plaintiff alleges that the arresting officers “committed a misconduct,” “violated [her] civil 

rights which involved Excessive Deadly Force with a Selective Enforcement of Conduct 

unbecoming for Personal gain towards a malice on [her] life,” and that she was “Bounded 

in Handcuffs.” Id. at 1-3. She claims in other filings that her “head was excessively 

slammed on the concrete,” that one of the officers “deliberately pull[ed] [her] weave 

out,” and that her right knee was dislocated. Doc. 26 at 2-3. Plaintiff was found guilty of 

resisting arrest, possession or use of dangerous drugs, and interfering with judicial 

proceedings on April 29, 2013. Doc. 23 at 6. 

Case 2:12-cv-02574-DGC Document 38 Filed 02/03/14 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

II. Legal Standard. 

When analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim to relief under Rule 

12(b)(6), the well-pled factual allegations “are taken as true and construed in the light 

most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation omitted). Legal conclusions couched as factual 

allegations “are not entitled to the assumption of truth,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

680 (2009), and therefore “‘are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim,’” In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation 

omitted). To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the complaint must plead “enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 570 (2007). This plausibility standard “is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ 

but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do 

not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint 

has alleged – but it has not ‘show[n]’ – ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. at 679 

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 

III. Analysis. 

 A. Motion to Dismiss. 

Defendant advances several bases for its motion to dismiss, including that 

Plaintiff’s claim is barred by res judicata. Doc. 23 at 2. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff 

filed a complaint on June 14, 2011 against Defendant in Maricopa County Superior Court 

based on events occurring on March 9, 2010. Id. at 5. It further asserts that the 

complaint was dismissed with prejudice on August 29, 2011. Id. Defendant has attached 

copies of the Superior Court complaint and the minute entry dismissing the case. See

Docs. 23-2, 23-3. In the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court may 

properly consider matters of public record outside the pleadings without converting the 

motion to one for summary judgment. Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., 798 F.2d 1279 (9th 

Cir. 1986) (overruled on other grounds by Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 

Case 2:12-cv-02574-DGC Document 38 Filed 02/03/14 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

501 U.S. 104 (1991)); see also Houston v. Ariz. St. Bd. of Educ., CV-10-8160-PHXGMS, 2012 WL 466474, at *2 n.3 (D. Ariz. Feb. 14, 2012) (noting that “[a] court may 

take judicial notice of ‘matters of public record outside the pleadings’”) (citation 

omitted). Accordingly, the Court will take judicial notice of these documents. 

 Plaintiff’s June 14, 2011 complaint alleges that on March 9, 2010, “Officers C. 

Colburn #16148 and M. Rome #15866 of the Mesa Police committed police brutality.” 

Doc. 23-2 at 2. Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges that “Officer C. Colburn #16148 

and Officer M. Rome #15866 of the Mesa Police Department . . . committed a 

misconduct on 3-9-10[.]” Doc. 7 at 1. She further alleges that this misconduct violated 

“the Police Departments (sic) rules and regulations of their policy,” “State and Federal 

regulated laws,” “civil rights,” “the 5th United States Constitutional Amendment, Due 

Process of the law,” “the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution,” 

“[Plaintiff’s] right to privacy (sic) the Arizona Constitutional Amended Article 8,” and 

the “cruel and unusual punishment Arizona Constitution Article.” Id. at 1-2. 

 Under the doctrine of res judicata, “where claims arise from the same factual 

circumstances, a plaintiff must bring all related claims together or forfeit the opportunity 

to bring any omitted claim in a subsequent proceeding.” Turtle Island Restoration 

Network v. U.S. Dept. of State, 673 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2012). The complaint in this 

case and the 2011 Superior Court complaint arise from the March 9, 2010 actions of 

Officers Colburn and Rome. Both allege misconduct by the officers in the arrest of 

Plaintiff. Because the 2011 lawsuit was resolved against her, Plaintiff’s claims in this 

case are barred by res judicata. The Court will grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

 B. Other Pending Motions. 

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for “Ruling re favorable ruling” (Doc. 21), a Motion to 

Amend/Correct her amended complaint (Doc. 24), a Motion to Amend/Correct her 

Motion for “Ruling re favorable ruling” (Doc. 26), and another Motion to Amend/Correct 

her amended complaint (Doc. 28). The Court will deny the motion for ruling re favorable 

ruling and the motion to amend said motion (Docs. 21 and 26) as moot. 

Case 2:12-cv-02574-DGC Document 38 Filed 02/03/14 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 The Court will also deny the motions to amend. “Dismissal of a pro se complaint 

without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the 

complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 

(9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Because Plaintiff’s claims are barred by res judicata, 

amendment could not cure the deficiencies of her complaint. 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 23) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for ruling re favorable ruling and motion to amend 

motion for ruling re favorable ruling (Docs. 21, 26) are denied as moot. 

 3. Plaintiff’s motions to amend (Docs. 24, 28) are denied. 

 4. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 3rd day of February, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-02574-DGC Document 38 Filed 02/03/14 Page 4 of 4