Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02512/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02512-0/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

Miriam Mendiola-Martinez,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Joseph M. Arpaio, Maricopa County 

Sheriff, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV11-2512 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (“Board”) has filed a motion to 

dismiss. Doc. 22. Plaintiff has filed a response, and the Board has filed a reply. 

Docs. 23, 24. No party has requested oral argument. For the reasons that follow, the 

Court will grant the motion. 

I. Non-Jural Entity.

 The Board claims that it is a non-jural entity not subject to suit. In addressing this 

argument, neither the Board nor Plaintiff mentions the numerous cases from this Court 

holding that the Board is a jural entity subject to suit. See, e.g., Barrett v. Maricopa 

County Sheriff’s Office, No. CV 08-2095, 2010 WL 46786 (D. Ariz. Jan. 4, 2010); 

Fabricius v. Maricopa County, No. CV 06-1105, 2008 WL 2001264 (D. Ariz. May 7, 

2008); Morgal v. Arpaio, No. CV07-670, 2007 WL 4200760 (D. Ariz. Nov. 27, 2007); 

Thomas v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, No. CV 07-0258, 2007 WL 2995634 

(D. Ariz. Oct. 12, 2007). For reasons stated in these cases, the Court rejects the Board’s 

argument that it is a non-jural entity. 

Case 2:11-cv-02512-DGC Document 27 Filed 11/19/12 Page 1 of 2
‐ 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. Sufficiency of the Pleadings.

 Plaintiff’s only allegation against the Board is that it is the chief executive officer 

of Maricopa County. Plaintiff pleads no factual basis for the Board’s liability in this 

case. In responding to this argument, Plaintiff cites several times to Conley v. Gibson, 

355 U.S. 41 (1957), but that case was abrogated by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562-63 (2007). 

 Under current pleading standards, the complaint must plead enough facts to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Plaintiff provides 

no such facts regarding the Board’s liability-creating activities in her complaint. Indeed, 

one cannot determine from reading Plaintiff’s complaint precisely what she contends the 

Board did to contribute to her alleged injury. Plaintiff therefore has failed to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. 

III. Service on the Board.

 The Court concludes that Plaintiff must serve each Board member with a copy of 

the complaint and summons. See Falcon v. Maricopa County, 144 P.3d 1254, 1257-60 

(Ariz. 2006). The Arizona Supreme Court held in Falcon that serving one member of the 

Board does not constitute proper service. The clear implication of this holding is that all 

members of the Board must be served. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Maricopa County Board of Supervisors’ motion 

to dismiss (Doc. 22) is granted. 

 Dated this 19th day of November, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-02512-DGC Document 27 Filed 11/19/12 Page 2 of 2