Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00813/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00813-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

Zachary Contine,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Ronald Credio, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-15-00813-PHX-ESW

ORDER

The Court has considered Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) filed on May 

12, 2015. No response has been filed. The matter is deemed submitted for decision.1

LRCiv 7.2(i) provides that if counsel does not serve and file a timely responsive 

memorandum to a motion, such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the granting 

of the pending motion, and the Court may summarily dispose of the motion. Therefore, 

the Court may summarily dispose of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. In addition, the 

Court finds upon review of the public records provided in Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are barred as a matter of law on the basis 

of claim preclusion and issue preclusion.2

 In addition, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state 

a claim as a matter of law. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with 

prejudice on the merits.

1 The parties have consented to the exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction (Doc. 8).

2 The Court may take judicial notice of public records.

 

Case 2:15-cv-00813-ESW Document 10 Filed 06/05/15 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 

Plaintiff previously litigated his current claim in Maricopa County Superior Court 

CV 2013-001618. Final judgment was entered against Plaintiff in favor of the State of 

Arizona and Arizona Department of Corrections on June 25, 2014. As employees of the 

Arizona Department of Corrections, the named Defendants in this case are parties in 

privity with the Arizona Department of Corrections for purposes of claim and issue 

preclusion. See Corbett v. Manor Care of Am., Inc., 146 P.3d 1027, 1039 (Ariz. Ct. App. 

2006). Defendants correctly set forth in their Motion to Dismiss the application of the 

legal concepts of claim and issue preclusion to this case. Defendants further persuasively 

set forth an analysis of how Plaintiff has failed to state a claim as a matter of law. 

For the reasons set forth in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9). Plaintiff’s 

Complaint (Doc. 1-2 at 1-7) is dismissed with prejudice.

The Court further finds, in its discretion, that Defendants are entitled to an award 

of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Application for an award 

of attorneys’ fees shall be filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

within ten business days of the filing of this Order. 

Dated this 5th day of June, 2015. 

- 2 - 

Case 2:15-cv-00813-ESW Document 10 Filed 06/05/15 Page 2 of 2