Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02230/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02230-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brian Neus, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-CV-2230-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion for an extension of time until January 17,

2006 to file a motion to amend the complaint (doc. 17). No response was filed and the time

for filing a response has expired. Good cause appearing, plaintiff's motion is granted nunc

pro tunc (doc. 17).

The court also has before it plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint (doc. 18). No

response was filed and the time for filing a response has expired. Leave to amend a

complaint "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is granted (doc. 18). However, the parties are reminded that

the deadlines in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order (doc. 13) will be strictly enforced, and this

amendment will not justify any extensions of time.

The court also has before it defendant State of Arizona's motion to dismiss plaintiff's

whistleblower claims directed against it (doc. 21), by which we assume that defendant refers

Case 2:05-cv-02230-FJM Document 30 Filed 03/23/06 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 1

 Counts I and II are unaffected by the amendments to the complaint.

- 2 -

to counts I (reprisal in violation of A.R.S. § 38-532) and II (wrongful termination in violation

of A.R.S. § 23-1501).1

 No response was filed and the time for filing a response has expired.

Defendant contends that plaintiff was terminated by the State of Arizona; that plaintiff

appealed the termination to the Arizona State Personnel Board where he claimed that he was

unlawfully terminated in retaliation for two acts; that the termination was upheld; that

plaintiff had an opportunity to appeal the decision to the Arizona Superior Court pursuant to

A.R.S. § 41-785(F), but that he did not do so; and that having failed to appeal the

termination, plaintiff is barred from obtaining judicial review of the decision pursuant to

A.R.S. § 12-902(B) and the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

The State of Arizona's unopposed allegations appear to show that plaintiff is barred

from litigating counts I and II. Moreover, plaintiff's failure to respond to the motion to

dismiss "may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion, and the Court may

dispose of the motion summarily." LRCiv 7.2(i). Accordingly, defendant State of Arizona's

motion to dismiss counts I and II is granted (doc. 21).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion for an extension

of time until January 17, 2006 to file a motion to amend the complaint (doc. 17).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion to amend the

complaint (doc. 18).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendant State of Arizona's motion to

dismiss counts I and II (doc. 21).

For clarity, counts III and IV remain, which we interpret as 42 U.S.C. § 1983

individual capacity claims against defendant Staubitz.

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02230-FJM Document 30 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2