Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08116/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08116-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

Joseph R. Unick, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Town of Prescott Valley, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8116-PCT-SMM

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

At the outset of this case, Joseph and Linda Unick (“Plaintiffs”) brought a wideranging RICO and Civil Rights Complaint against numerous officials of the Town of

Prescott Valley (“Defendants”). (Doc. 12.) Plaintiffs own Lot 6532 (the “Lot”), a dirt lot in

Unit 16, in Prescott Valley, Arizona. (Id.) The Lot is in a sparsely developed area of Prescott

Valley in the Agua Fria Flood Plain. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants at one time intended

to develop Unit 16 for commercial purposes, but after failing once to re-engineer the flood

plain to comply with federal regulations, have no desire to pay for another attempt. (Id.) In

an alleged attempt to force Plaintiffs to apply for and pay for re-engineering the Lot to

remove it from the flood plain, Plaintiffs accused Defendants of engaging in a scheme that

included dumping hazardous waste and hazardous dirt onto Plaintiffs’ property and illegally

prosecuting Plaintiffs for zoning violations. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants

used state laws authorizing the formation of commercial facilities districts (“CFDs”) and

funds from the CFDs to illegally tax citizens and businesses. (Id.)

The Court entered a Scheduling Order regarding discovery pertaining to the Plaintiffs’

Case 3:10-cv-08116-SMM Document 71 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

allegations of illegal dumping. (Doc. 50.) Subsequently, the Court conducted a site visit at

Plaintiffs’ property. (Doc. 51.) Defendants conducted discovery, deposing Plaintiffs, and

filed a motion for summary judgment in favor of all Defendants on all claims. (Doc. 57.)

Defendants rightfully contended that this lawsuit was merely “revenge” for

Defendants’ citing, prosecuting, and finding Plaintiffs guilty of a zoning violation for

improperly fencing their Lot and improperly keeping salvaged vehicles and tires on a

residentially zoned lot. (Doc. 57 at 2, 4; Doc. 58 at 7.) Defendants contended that because

Plaintiffs were found guilty of the zoning violation, they brought this frivolous lawsuit as

a means to harass Defendants in retaliation. (Doc. 57 at 2.) 

Defendants contended that summary judgment was warranted on all claims because

(1) Plaintiffs admit that Prescott Valley never “dumped” dirt on their lot, but rather the dirt

was spread on the property before Plaintiffs purchased it, with the consent of the property’s

previous owner and with Plaintiffs’ full knowledge; (2) Plaintiffs admit there is no evidence

that any of the Defendants either illegally dumped dirt on their property or are responsible

for dumping dirt on their property; and (3) there is no evidence that any dirt on Plaintiffs’

property was or is hazardous. (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiffs did not respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Subsequently, former counsel for Plaintiffs, Robert Blakey, had his law practice suspended

by the State Bar of Arizona. (Doc. 65; Doc. 60 at 2.) Plaintiffs then obtained substitute

counsel. (Doc. 67.) 

The Court required new counsel for Plaintiffs to decide and inform the Court whether

“the case will be moving forward on all of the legal theories previously set forth in the

Amended Complaint, or whether Plaintiffs are making the decision to withdraw any or all

the claims submitted in their Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 65 at 1-2.) The Court also gave

new counsel for Plaintiffs additional time to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiffs neither responded that they were moving forward with the

Amended Complaint nor responded to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Case 3:10-cv-08116-SMM Document 71 Filed 07/30/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 57);

Defendants’ Motion for Ruling (Doc. 68), and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss All Counts with

Prejudice (Doc. 69). Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss all claims recommended that the Court

either grant their motion to dismiss or grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

(Doc. 69.) Defendants responded asking the Court to grant their summary judgment motion,

with each party to bear their own costs and fees. (Doc. 70.) The Court agrees with

Defendants.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment. (Doc. 57.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of all

Defendants on all claims and terminate this action. The Clerk of Court shall DISMISS

WITH PREJUDICE any and all claims with all parties to bear their respective costs and

attorney’s fees.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Defendants’ motion for ruling (Doc.

68) and that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss all Counts with Prejudice is denied as moot.

(Doc. 69.)

DATED this 30th day of July, 2012.

Case 3:10-cv-08116-SMM Document 71 Filed 07/30/12 Page 3 of 3