Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01539/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01539-2/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

George Abarah, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Scottsdale Police Department, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1539-PHX-DGC

ORDER

In an order dated December 9, 2010, the Court required Plaintiff to file a

memorandum stating whether he intends to continue with the prosecution of this case.

Doc. 28 at 2. The Court made clear that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), a

non-jural entity, is not a defendant in this case. Id.; see Doc. 19 (granting motion to dismiss

the MCSO). 

Plaintiff has filed a “motion to clarify list of defendants and response to order.”

Doc. 29. The Court construes this filing a response to the order of December 9, 2010, and

as a statement that Plaintiff intends to continue with the prosecution of this case.

Plaintiff “moves to affirm that the MCSO is a codefendant in this suit” and also

“moves to add Maricopa County to the suit . . . [and] the Maricopa County Board of

Supervisors[.]” Doc. 29 at 5. The MCSO is a non-jural entity. It may not be sued. It is not

a defendant in this suit.

In an order dated October 18, 2010, the Court stated that “[i]f Plaintiff wishes to bring

claims against Maricopa County itself or individual employees of the County, the Court will

Case 2:10-cv-01539-DGC Document 32 Filed 12/20/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

grant him leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff shall have until November 5, 2010

to file an amended complaint.” Doc. 19 at 2. Plaintiff did not meet this deadline. He filed

a “Response” on November 25, 2010 (Doc. 20), but the Court has made clear that it will not

treat that filing as an amended complaint (Doc. 28 at 2). The original complaint (Doc. 1) is

the operative complaint in this action, and the City of Scottsdale Police Department is the

lone Defendant. See Doc. 28 at 2.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to clarify list of defendants (Doc. 29) is denied to the extent

he seeks to amend the original complaint (Doc. 1) to add defendants.

2. The original complaint (Doc. 1) is the operative complaint in this action. The

“Response” filed on November 25, 2010 (Doc. 20) does not constitute an

amended complaint.

3. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has been dismissed as a defendant.

Docs. 19, 28.

4. The City of Scottsdale Police Department is the only Defendant in this case.

DATED this 20th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01539-DGC Document 32 Filed 12/20/10 Page 2 of 2