Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01233/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01233-0/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Anthony Dean Jackson 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-01233-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Anthony Jackson has asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 

Defendants State of Arizona and Maricopa County, and has filed a motion for partial 

summary judgment. Docs. 1, 5. The County has not been served with either the 

complaint or the motion for partial summary judgment. The State has filed a motion to 

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and Plaintiff has responded. Docs. 3, 4. 

A. Claim Against the State. 

 Section 1983 allows plaintiffs to recover against “[e]very person” who deprives 

them of their civil rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In Will v. Michigan Department of State 

Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), the Supreme Court held that neither a State nor its officials 

acting in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983. As a result, the State is not 

subject to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim and its motion to dismiss is will be granted. 

B. Claim Against the County. 

 Because the County has not been served with the complaint or Plaintiff’s motion 

for partial summary judgment, the motion will be denied. 

Case 2:12-cv-01233-DGC Document 8 Filed 11/09/12 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 

 Plaintiff has not provided proof that he has served the County as required by 

Rule 4(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The 120 days allowed for service by 

Rule 4(m) have elapsed. Plaintiff has not sought an extension of the time for service. On 

or before November 28, 2012, Plaintiff shall file a memorandum showing why this case 

should not be dismissed for failure to serve the County within the time required by Rule 

4(m). 

 The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s complaint asks the Court to invalidate his 

State-court conviction for kidnapping and sexual abuse. Doc. 1. Plaintiff asserts that his 

constitutional rights were violated during his trial, and seeks relief under § 1983. Id. A 

claim cannot be brought under § 1983 if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would 

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,” unless Plaintiff 

demonstrates that the conviction or sentence has previously been reversed, expunged, or 

otherwise invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). This bar 

extends to claims for declaratory relief, such as Plaintiff’s claim in this case for a nolle 

prosequi declaration. Doc. 1 at 12; see Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); 

see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2005) (“[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 

action is barred (absent prior invalidation) – no matter the relief sought (damages or 

equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner's suit (state conduct leading to 

conviction or internal prison proceedings) – if success in that action would necessarily 

demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.”). Plaintiff does not allege that 

his conviction has been reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated, and it would this 

appear that he cannot assert a claim against the County under § 1983. 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Defendant State of Arizona’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 3) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 5) is denied. 

3. On or before November 28, 2012, Plaintiff shall file a memorandum 

showing why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 4(m). If 

Plaintiff fails to file a memorandum by that date, the Court will dismiss this case without 

Case 2:12-cv-01233-DGC Document 8 Filed 11/09/12 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 

further notice. 

 Dated this 9th day of November, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-01233-DGC Document 8 Filed 11/09/12 Page 3 of 3