Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01779/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01779-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Daniel Patterson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Pima County Sheriff’s Department, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01779-TUC-RM (EJM)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) issued by 

United States Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich that recommends granting Defendants’ 

Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Docs. 8 and 9). As explained by 

Magistrate Judge Markovich, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief could 

be granted. As Plaintiff’s objections1

 do not undermine the analysis and proper 

conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Markovich, and in fact simply repeat what 

Plaintiff submitted in opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s 

objections are rejected and the Report and Recommendation is adopted. 

 After the dismissal of Defendants Pima County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Clarence 

Dupnik, City of Tucson, and Tucson City Attorney Michael Rankin, only Defendants 

 

1

 The Court notes that Plaintiff only objected as to the dismissal of his suit against Tucson City Attorney Michael Rankin. (See Doc. 23.) Accordingly, Plaintiff waived his 

right to de novo review of Magistrate Judge Markovich’s Report and Recommendation as to the dismissal of Defendant Pima County Sheriff’s Office, Defendant Sheriff Clarence 

Dupnik, and Defendant City of Tucson. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Regardless, this Court has reviewed Judge Markovich’s Report and Recommendation in full and finds that it properly concludes that each of the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss should be granted in their entirety. 

Case 4:13-cv-01779-RM-EJM Document 26 Filed 11/06/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Deputies Jane/John Doe 1 and 2 remain. Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure requires plaintiff to include the names of all parties in the action. As a 

practical matter, it is impossible in most instances to serve a summons and complaint 

upon an anonymous defendant. 

 The Ninth Circuit has held that where the identity of a defendant is unknown prior 

to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through 

discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not 

uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. 

Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 

629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Here, discovery will not be a viable option to learn 

the identities of Deputies Jane/John Does 1 and 2 because all named Defendants in this 

case are to be dismissed. However, as Magistrate Judge Markovich noted in his Report 

and Recommendation (Doc. 22), it is apparent that the identities of Deputies Jane/John 

Does 1 and 2 are accessible through either a public records request or by obtaining a copy 

of the affidavit of service filed in Plaintiff’s order-of-protection case. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

 (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted and adopted; 

 (2) Defendants Pima County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s 

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is granted. Defendant Pima County Sheriff’s Office is 

dismissed with prejudice. Defendant Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is dismissed without 

prejudice. 

 (3) Defendants City of Tucson and Tucson City Attorney Michael Rankin’s 

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is granted. Defendant Tucson City Attorney Michael 

Rankin is dismissed with prejudice. Defendant City of Tucson is dismissed without 

prejudice. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 4:13-cv-01779-RM-EJM Document 26 Filed 11/06/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

 (4) Plaintiff shall have 60 days to identify Deputies John/Jane Does 1 and 2, and to 

amend his complaint accordingly. The Clerk is directed to automatically dismiss this 

action without prejudice if Plaintiff does not comply with this instruction. 

 Dated this 5th day of November, 2014. 

Honorable Rosemary Márquez

United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cv-01779-RM-EJM Document 26 Filed 11/06/14 Page 3 of 3