Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01094/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01094-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

John C. Cooper, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-1094 PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr. is a resident of the Arizona State Hospital 

(“ASH”). Mr. Farnham filed a complaint against Defendants John C. Cooper, Steven 

Forster, and Ann M. Froio in their official capacities as Chief Executive Officer, Chief of 

Security, and Director of ASH. Doc. 1. Mr. Farnham alleges the destruction and loss of 

his personal belongings and craft items after a flood occurred in his residential unit and 

Defendants forced him to relocate without first packing his things. Id. at 2-4. Mr. 

Farnham requests compensation from all Defendants for the loss of his belongings in the 

amount of $700 and for his mental anguish in the amount of $1,000. Id. at 5. Mr. 

Farnham also requests that the Court order Defendants that Mr. Farnham “not be 

separated from his personal property again.” Id. 

 Defendant Forster filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Eleventh 

Amendment bars claims against him in his official capacity and that Mr. Farnham fails to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Doc. 9. Defendants Cooper and Froio 

Case 2:11-cv-01094-DGC Document 17 Filed 02/23/12 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

filed a separate motion to dismiss, adopting and incorporating the arguments put forth by 

Defendant Forster and raising the additional argument that neither of them currently 

holds positions for which they can be sued in their official capacities. Doc. 13 at 1-2. 

The motions have been fully briefed (Docs. 11, 12; 15, 16.), and no party has requested 

oral argument. As explained below, the Court will grant these motions and dismiss Mr. 

Farnham’s complaint. 

 Mr. Forster’s motion quotes heavily from an order in Case No. 2:11-CV-00192-

PHX-NVW in which Judge Neil V. Wake dismissed a nearly identical complaint that Mr. 

Farnham filed against the same Defendants.1

 Doc. 9 at 3-5. The Court agrees, for the 

reasons already stated in Judge Wake’s order, that Mr. Farnham has failed to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. See Case No. 2:11-CV-00192-PHX-NVW, Doc. 10. 

In Mr. Farnham’s prior cause of action, Judge Wake twice dismissed Mr. Farnham’s 

complaints with leave to amend, explaining in detail the Eleventh Amendment bar, Mr. 

Farnham’s failure to name Defendants acting in their individual capacities, his failure to 

allege future harm for purpose of seeking an injunction, and his failure to plead sufficient 

facts to show that each Defendant intentionally violated his constitutional rights. See id., 

Docs. 6, 8. Judge Wake dismissed Mr. Farnham’s second amended complaint with 

prejudice upon concluding that Mr. Farnham had again failed to cure the pleading 

deficiencies of his complaint and that further leave to amend would be futile. Id., 

Doc. 10, at 4 (“[N]one of Farnham’s allegations against any Defendant – especially his 

allegations of intent – rise “above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Any 

number of circumstances could explain Farnham’s loss of property. After three 

complaints, he simply has not alleged any facts plausibly suggesting that Defendants 

intentionally deprived him of his property.”). Mr. Farnham’s instant complaint provides 

no new legal theories or relevant factual allegations to cure the deficiencies of his prior 

 

1

 That complaint also named Will Hubble, Division Director, and had originally named the State of Arizona and ACPTC, a division of the Arizona State Hospital. 

Case 2:11-cv-01094-DGC Document 17 Filed 02/23/12 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

cause of action. The Court will grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss Mr. Farnham’s 

complaint with prejudice for the reasons already identified in Judge Wake’s prior three 

orders. See Case No. 2:11-CV-00192-PHX-NVW, Docs. 6, 8, 10. 

 Mr. Farnham filed a motion to serve Defendant Cooper (Doc. 10) and a motion for 

summary judgment on Defendant Froio for failing to answer the complaint and failing to 

return a waiver of service (Doc. 14). Because the Court has ruled to dismiss Mr. 

Farnham’s complaint as to all Defendants, the Court will deny these motions as moot. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Defendant Steven Forster’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is granted. 

 2. Defendants John C. Cooper’s and Ann M. Froio’s motion to dismiss 

(Doc. 13) is granted. 

 3. Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.’s, complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed

with prejudice. 

 4. Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.’s, motion to serve under seal 

(Doc. 10) is denied as moot. 

 5. Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.’s, motion for summary judgment on 

Defendant Froio (Doc. 14) is denied as moot. 

 6. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to terminate this matter. 

 Dated this 22nd day of February, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01094-DGC Document 17 Filed 02/23/12 Page 3 of 3