Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01696/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01696-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

JDDL

MDR

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raymond Earl Rigsby, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1696-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

I. Procedural History

On June 27, 2011, Plaintiff Raymond Earl Rigsby, who is confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex-Yuma in San Luis, Arizona, filed a Complaint in the Superior Court

of Maricopa County, Arizona. On August 26, 2011, Defendant Jan Brewer filed a Notice of

Removal and removed the case to this Court. On September 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

document entitled “Writ of Prohibition and Request for Appropriate Sanctions,” in which he

requested that the Court issue a “Writ of Prohibition.” 

In a September 8, 2011 Order, the Court concluded that removal was appropriate

because Plaintiff, in his Complaint, raised claims for violations of his constitutional rights

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, without prejudice,

because Plaintiff had failed to file his Complaint on a court-approved form, as required by

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended

complaint on a court-approved form.

Case 2:11-cv-01696-DGC Document 16 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 7
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

JDDL - 2 -

On September 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Vacate and or Amended Order

of 09-08-2011 (with Affidavit)” (Doc. 7). In his Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff requested that

the Court vacate or amend the September 2, 2011 Order and enter an order striking or

dismissing the Notice of Removal. On October 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend

Time, requesting that the Court grant him an extension of time to file his first amended

complaint 30 days after the Court ruled on his Motion to Vacate.

In a November 1, 2011 Order, the Court denied without prejudice the September 2nd

request for a “Writ of Prohibition,” granted the Motion to Extend Time, gave Defendant 20

days to file a response to the Motion to Vacate, and gave Plaintiff 10 days after the response

was filed to file a reply. The Court also allowed Plaintiff 30 days after the Court ruled on the

Motion to Vacate to file his first amended complaint.

On November 8, 2011, Defendant filed her Response (Doc. 11). On November 18,

2011, Plaintiff filed his Reply (Doc. 12). On January 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “Petition for

Writ of Prohibition” (Doc. 14).

II. Motion to Vacate

In his Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff alleges three grounds for striking the Notice of

Removal and remanding the case back to the state court. 

A. Conflict of Interest

Plaintiff claims that the Arizona Attorney General is a defendant in this action but has

also appeared as counsel for Defendant Brewer. Plaintiff asserts that the Court “lacks

jurisdiction subject matter due to conflict of interest, due process.” Plaintiff has cited nothing

to explain how a conflict of interest between two defendants deprives the Court of subject

matter jurisdiction. 

B. Failure to Answer

Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ failure to file a timely answer to the Complaint “is

a default” or a violation of a statute of limitations and deprives the Court of subject matter

jurisdiction. He is incorrect. A defendant’s failure to answer in this case does not constitute

Case 2:11-cv-01696-DGC Document 16 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 7
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

JDDL - 3 -

a “default” or deprive the Court of jurisdiction. In fact, Congress specifically envisioned

such a situation and addressed it in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g), which provides:

(1) Any defendant may waive the right to reply to any action

brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other

correctional facility under section 1983 of this title or any other

Federal law. Notwithstanding any other law or rule of

procedure, such waiver shall not constitute an admission of the

allegations contained in the complaint. No relief shall be granted

to the plaintiff unless a reply has been filed.

(2) The court may require any defendant to reply to a

complaint brought under this section if it finds that the plaintiff

has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits.

C. Failure to Serve Copy of Notice of Removal

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Brewer failed to serve him with a copy of the Notice

of Removal, that this deprived Plaintiff of due process and access to the court and “is

sufficient to deprive this Court of jurisdiction subject matter.” The Court disagrees.

1. Parties’ Arguments

Plaintiff states in his Motion to Vacate that he appeared telephonically at a state court

hearing in this matter on August 29, 2011, and was advised that the hearing would not

proceed because Defendant Brewer had filed a Notice of Removal. He alleges that the

following day he received a letter from the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona explaining that the case had been removed from the state court to

this Court. Plaintiff alleges that the following day, August 31, 2011, he received an envelope

from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office that contained a copy of his complaint and other

documents without explanation. Plaintiff claims that he has not been served with a copy of

the Notice as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(e).

In her Response, Defendant Brewer states that after filing the Notice of Removal, a

legal secretary at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office mailed, on August 26th, a copy of

the Notice of Removal to Plaintiff and also mailed to Plaintiff a copy of a “Notice to Adverse

Party of Removal to Federal Court” that had been filed in the state court. Defendant Brewer

asserts, therefore, that “Plaintiff received proper notice under the statute when he was mailed

a copy of the notice of removal.”

Case 2:11-cv-01696-DGC Document 16 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 7
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

JDDL - 4 -

In his Reply, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Brewer has failed to meet her burden of

proving that she gave written notice to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff received it. He states that

although he received on August 31st an envelope from the Arizona Attorney General’s

Office that contained his Complaint and other documents “without expla[]nation,” he did not

receive a copy of the Notice of Removal. He claims that he generally receives legal mail

from the courts and attorneys the day after it is mailed, but even allowing extra time, he

should have received a copy of the Notice of Removal by August 29th, but did not. He

claims that the legal secretary’s affidavit submitted by Defendant Brewer is insufficient to

meet her burden of proof, in light of the affidavits and evidence Plaintiff has submitted.

2. Discussion

As the Court stated in its November 1, 2011 Order, Plaintiff has incorrectly relied on

an outdated version of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(e). That subsection no longer relates to the removal

of civil actions. As noted in the November 1st Order, the correct statute is 28 U.S.C.

§ 1446(d), which provides, in relevant part, that “[p]romptly after the filing of such notice

of removal of a civil action the defendant or defendants shall give written notice thereof

to all adverse parties.” (Emphasis added).

Although a defendant “bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper,”

Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009),

there is no dispute that Defendant Brewer was entitled to remove this case. To the extent that

Defendant Brewer may not have provided Plaintiff with the notice required by § 1446(d), the

Court finds that the “the alleged defect is harmless and, not being jurisdictional, creates no

basis for remand.” Calderon v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., 101 F. Supp. 2d 246, 248 (S.D.N.Y.

2000).

To the extent Plaintiff believes he is entitled to be served with a copy of the Notice

of Removal itself, he is incorrect. Section 1446(d) does not require service of the Notice of

Removal, it simply requires that a defendant give written notice that the Notice of Removal

has been filed. Runaj v. Wells Fargo Bank, 667 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1202 (S.D. Cal. 2009)

(“Section 1446(d) does not require ‘formal’ or ‘personal’ service of a notice of removal upon

Case 2:11-cv-01696-DGC Document 16 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 7
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

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Complaint “and other documents that were previously

filed with the state court” were attached to the Notice of Removal. See Doc. 1 at 2.

JDDL - 5 -

a plaintiff; it merely requires ‘written notice.’”). The legal secretary’s affidavit sufficiently

demonstrates that she attempted to mailed a copy of the Notice of Removal to Plaintiff at his

prison address. This does not, however, clarify the issue of whether Plaintiff actually

received a copy of the Notice of Removal. His allegations and submitted evidence suggest

that he did not. 

“Where defendants make a good faith effort to give notice, and where plaintiffs suffer

no prejudice as a result of the failure of that attempt, . . . the requirements of section 1446(d)

are sufficiently fulfilled to effect removal.” L & O Partnership No. 2 v. Aetna Cas. and Sur.

Co., 761 F. Supp. 549, 552 (N.D. Ill. 1991). See also Busby v. Capital One, N.A. 759

F. Supp. 2d 81, 85-86 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing other recent authorities holding that a good faith

effort to provide written notice satisfies § 1446(d) absent any prejudice to the plaintiff).

Here, the Court finds that Defendant Brewer has demonstrated a good faith effort to give

notice. The affidavit she submitted states that a legal secretary at the Arizona Attorney

General’s Office mailed a copy of the Notice of Removal to Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not

dispute that he received mail from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, just that it arrived

a few days later than he would have expected and did not contain a copy of the Notice of

Removal. It appears, therefore, that Defendant Brewer attempted to mail the Notice of

Removal to Plaintiff, although the Notice of Removal itself may not have been included in

the envelope.1

In addition, Plaintiff cannot credibly claim that he was prejudiced by not receiving

written notice from Defendant Brewer. As previously noted, § 1446(d) does not require that

a defendant send a copy of the notice of removal itself. Even if Plaintiff did not receive

written notice from Defendant Brewer, he did receive prompt notice that the case had been

removed. By Plaintiff’s own admission, he received oral notice from the state court and a

written notice from this Court, both of which informed Plaintiff that a notice of removal had

been filed. To the extent that Plaintiff may not have received written notice of the removal

Case 2:11-cv-01696-DGC Document 16 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 7
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

JDDL - 6 -

from Defendant Brewer, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not been prejudice by it. Remand

of this case is therefore inappropriate. The Court will deny the Motion to Vacate.

III. Petition for Writ of Prohibition

Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Prohibition seeks to have the case remanded to the state

court, sanctions, and his costs incurred in bringing the Petition and the Motion to Vacate.

Plaintiff’s claims in his Petition for Writ of Prohibition are essentially the same as those in

his Motion to Vacate and Reply. Because the Court has denied the Motion to Vacate, the

Court will also deny the Petition for Writ of Prohibition.

IV. Time to File First Amended Complaint

In the Court’s November 1, 2011 Order, the Court stated that Plaintiff would have 30

days from the time that the Court ruled on Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate within which to file

a first amended complaint that complies with the Court’s September 8, 2011 Order. Because

this Order denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of

this Order to file his first amended complaint.

V. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

B. Copies

Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See

LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice

to Plaintiff.

C. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of the September 8, 2011 Order

and this Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further

Case 2:11-cv-01696-DGC Document 16 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 7
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

JDDL - 7 -

notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may

dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 7) is denied.

(2) Plaintiff’s “Petition for Writ of Prohibition” (Doc. 14) is denied.

(3) Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended

complaint in compliance with the September 8, 2011 Order and this Order.

(4) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of

Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without

prejudice.

DATED this 31st day of January, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01696-DGC Document 16 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 7