Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00595/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00595-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joel Fox, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Samuel P. Goddard III, in his personal

capacity; Donald Conrad, in his personal

capacity; Todd Lawson, in his personal

capacity; Michael Edwards, in his personal

capacity, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-00595-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Samuel P. Goddard III’s Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings (Doc. 30). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges three counts for violations of 42 U.S.C.

§§ 1983, 1985, and the Stored Communications Act related to an allegedly unlawful search

and seizure of Plaintiff’s home and email accounts. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s

claims fail because (1) Count One is barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, and fails to

state a plausible claim for relief, (2) Count Two is barred for failing to plead membership in

a suspect class, and (3) 18 U.S.C. § 2707(e) provides a complete defense to Count Three.

Although Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion was due August 15, 2011, see LRCiv.

7.2(c), no response has been filed.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is assessed under the standard applicable to

Case 2:11-cv-00595-NVW Document 31 Filed 08/23/11 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 -

a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093

(9th Cir. 1980). The Court previously granted the motions to dismiss filed by the other three

defendants named in this action (Doc. 29). Although Plaintiff has not responded to

Defendant’s motion, which is cause to grant the motion, see LRCiv. 7.2(i), the Court grants

the motion on its merits for the reasons stated in Defendant’s motion and the reasons stated

in the Court’s previous order granting Defendants Lawson, Conrad, and Edwards’s Motions

to Dismiss (Doc. 29).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Samuel P. Goddard III’s Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 30) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s

Complaint (Doc. 1) with prejudice as to all Defendants. The Clerk shall terminate the case.

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00595-NVW Document 31 Filed 08/23/11 Page 2 of 2