Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02194/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02194-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

Roberto Valencia, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sergeant David W. Austin et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-02194-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 6.) This lawsuit alleges

police brutality in violation of Arizona state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The police officer

defendants and their wives (“Individual Defendants”) argue that Plaintiff cannot sue them

individually for assault and battery, negligence per se, and willful or wanton negligence

(Plaintiff’s state-law causes of action) because Plaintiff failed to comply with Arizona’s

notice-of-claim statute, A.R.S. § 12-821.01. Plaintiff, in response, concedes this argument

and consents to dismissal of his state-law causes of action with respect to the Individual

Defendants. The Court will therefore grant Defendants’ motion in this respect.

The Individual Defendants further argue that they cannot be liable for punitive

damages under Plaintiff’s state-law causes of action, and Defendant City of Phoenix argues

that it cannot be liable for punitive damages under any of Plaintiff’s causes of action.

Plaintiff again concedes both arguments, noting that he requested punitive damages only

Case 2:10-cv-02194-JRG Document 11 Filed 11/02/10 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 -

from the Individual Defendants, and recognizing that he could not request punitive damages

from the City of Phoenix. Plaintiff therefore consents to “dismissal” of his prayer for

punitive damages against the Individual Defendants except with respect to his § 1983 cause

of action. Punitive damages, however, are a remedy, not a cause of action. Thus, there is

nothing for the Court to dismiss. Nor will the Court strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive

damages given that it remains in effect with respect to his § 1983 cause of action against the

Individual Defendants.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, for the reasons stated above.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02194-JRG Document 11 Filed 11/02/10 Page 2 of 2