Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00247/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00247-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Tony Nixon, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Tyler D. Francis, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-00247-TUC-JGZ

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 

States Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle that recommends granting Defendants’ Motion 

to Dismiss (doc. 39) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Respond to 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 56), or, in the alternative, granting Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss (doc. 39) and denying the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Respond 

(doc. 56) as moot. (Doc. 64.) Plaintiff timely filed an objection on July 27, 2016. (Doc. 

65.) Defendants did not file a response to the objection. 

 The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Pyle’s 

recommendation to grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 39) and deny as moot the 

related Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Respond (doc. 56) is appropriate. The Magistrate 

Judge correctly found that there is no federal basis for any of Plaintiff’s claims against 

the “Francis” Defendants.1

 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, but because an appointed 

 

1

 Defendant United States of America, substituted for the named Defendant, 

Assistant United States Attorney Brian Decker, was dismissed on March 2, 2016. (Doc. 

55.) The “Francis” Defendants include D. Tyler Francis, Tyler D. Francis, and Ellinwood 

Case 4:15-cv-00247-JGZ-CRP Document 66 Filed 09/14/16 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

attorney is not a “federal official” for the purposes of a Bivens claim, that claim fails. Cox 

v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, Plaintiff’s claims pertaining 

to the effective representation by Defendant Francis in his criminal proceedings and the 

alleged conspiracy between Defendant Francis and the prosecutor in that case, would, if 

true, render Plaintiff’s conviction invalid. Under Heck v. Humphries, 114 S. Ct. 2364 

(1994), in order to sustain a claim for damages for conduct that would render a conviction 

or sentence invalid, Plaintiff would have to show that the conviction or sentence has been 

reversed, expunged, or otherwise declared invalid—a showing he cannot make. The 

remaining claims are state law contract, malpractice, and tort claims over which this 

Court will, in its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in the absence 

of a federal cause of action.2

 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). 

 In his Objection,3

 Plaintiff asserts: (1) the information given to the Court by 

Defendant Francis is incorrect; (2) Plaintiff filed all the correct information that was 

required by the Court; and (3) Plaintiff has the right to file the present lawsuit without 

overturning any conviction because it is a law suit involving negligence and legal 

malpractice. (Doc. 65.) Plaintiff also reasserts many of the factual and legal allegations 

 and Francis LLP. 

2

 Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts claims for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of implied in fact contract; breach of written contract; negligence; pain and suffering; “pain and unusual punishment”; false incarceration; danger to Plaintiff’s health, life, and safety due to false incarceration; loss of personal property due to false incarceration; “100% Percent Effective Assistance of Counsel and Breach of Implied In Fact Contract (Verbal) to Represent Tony Nixon Fair and Right According to the Law”; False Incarceration Due to the Breach of Attorney Agreement to Uphold the Law”; “Loss of Plaintiff Tony Nixon Personal Property Due to False Incarceration and Bad Representation and Bad Attorney”; and “Refusal to Present Evidence in Plaintiff Tony Nixon Case and Call Witnesses.” 

3

 Plaintiff’s Objection is entitled “Objection Motion Against the Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss with Exhibits...Plus Like to Argue this Objection Motion in Court to Dismiss the Defendant’s Claim.” (See doc. 64.) To the extent Plaintiff intended his 

Objection to be construed as a request to file a belated response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at Doc. 39, the request is denied. The Court also finds that the pending motions and the Report and Recommendation are suitable for resolution without oral argument. See LRCiv 7.2(f). 

Case 4:15-cv-00247-JGZ-CRP Document 66 Filed 09/14/16 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

against Defendant Francis, and attaches several exhibits in support of his original claims.4

With regards to Plaintiff’s first contention, this Court and the Magistrate Judge conducted 

independent review of both the record and the legal authority presented. Plaintiff’s 

general assertion that Francis gave incorrect information to the Court does not provide a 

basis for rejecting the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion. Plaintiff fails to identify any 

incorrect information which would change the legal analysis or outcome. Second, 

Plaintiff’s filings may include correct information, but on the facts presented the filings 

are insufficient to establish federal claims. Finally, Plaintiff’s assertion that this is a 

lawsuit involving negligence and legal malpractice does not alter the outcome because 

the Defendants are private parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). As noted above, Defendant 

Francis’s status as a court-appointed attorney does not make him an employee of the 

United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Accordingly, these claims are properly 

characterized as state law claims and may be dismissed. 

 In sum, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are not clearly 

erroneous. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation as 

follows: 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

 

4

 The exhibits attached by Plaintiff include Plaintiff’s recent state bar complaint against Defendant Francis, a letter from Plaintiff to Defendant Francis, and objections filed by Defendant Francis to a report and recommendation in Plaintiff’s criminal case. 

Case 4:15-cv-00247-JGZ-CRP Document 66 Filed 09/14/16 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (doc. 64) is accepted and adopted; 

2. Defendants Tyler Francis and Ellinwood & Francis LLP’s Motion to Dismiss 

(doc. 39) is GRANTED; 

3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Respond (doc. 56) is DENIED as 

moot; 

4. The Complaint (doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court 

is directed to close the case. 

 Dated this 14th day of September, 2016. 

Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00247-JGZ-CRP Document 66 Filed 09/14/16 Page 4 of 4