Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01411/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01411-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Allen Baker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona State Attorney General, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1411-PHX-RCB (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff John Allen Baker brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against City of Phoenix Police Officer Philips (Doc. 5). Before the Court is Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss Count III for failure to comply with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01, to which

Plaintiff did not respond (Doc. 12). The Court will grant the motion and dismiss Count III.

I. Background and Motion

In August 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint contending that

Defendant violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights (Count I) and his rights under the

Arizona Constitution (Count III) based upon Defendant’s warrantless and suspicionless

search of Plaintiff’s car. Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claim because

Plaintiff failed to file a notice of claim required under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01 (Doc. 12).

II. Analysis

Arizona Revised Statute § 12-821.01(A) states the following:

Persons who have claims against a public entity or a public

employee shall file claims with the person or persons authorized

to accept service for the public entity or public employee as set

Case 2:11-cv-01411-RCB Document 19 Filed 03/19/12 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 -

forth in the Arizona rules of civil procedure within one hundred

eighty days after the cause of action accrues. The claim shall

contain facts sufficient to permit the public entity or public

employee to understand the basis upon which liability is

claimed. The claim shall also contain a specific amount for

which the claim can be settled and the facts supporting that

amount. Any claim which is not filed within one hundred eighty

days after the cause of action accrues is barred and no action

may be maintained thereon.

After Defendant filed his motion, the Court issued a notice informing Plaintiff of his

obligation to respond (Doc. 14). In failing to respond to the motion, Plaintiff does not

introduce any evidence that he complied with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01(A). Nor does his

First Amended Complaint make any mention of compliance with the statute. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s state law claim in Count III is barred for failure to file a notice of claim and it will

be dismissed.

Alternatively, the Court has the discretion under Rule 7.2(i) of the Local Rules of

Civil Procedure to deem Plaintiff’s lack of response as consent to Defendant’s motion to

dismiss. Plaintiff was specifically warned of this possibility (Doc. 14). And the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a dismissal based on a failure to comply with a similar

local rule in the District of Nevada. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995).

For this additional reason, Defendant’s motion will be granted and Count III will be

dismissed. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 12).

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) is granted.

(3) Count III is dismissed. The remaining claim is Count I.

DATED this 16th day of March, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01411-RCB Document 19 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 2