Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02161/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02161-0/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 

Michael Dillman, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Mesa, City of, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-02161-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint pursuant to add 

Officer Donald Williams and Jane Doe Williams, husband and wife, as Defendants. Doc. 

17. The motion has been fully briefed, and no party has requested oral argument. Docs. 

18, 19. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be denied. 

I. Background. 

 Plaintiff brought suit against the City of Mesa for allegations arising out of a 

traffic stop on November 26, 2012. Doc. 1, ¶ 7. Plaintiff alleges that Mesa Police 

Officer McClellan forcibly pulled him out of his car, slammed him against the car, 

applied handcuffs that were too tight, and pushed him into the passenger seat, injuring his 

handcuffed wrists. Id., ¶ 8. While deposing Officer McClellan, Plaintiff learned that it 

was actually Officer Williams who stopped him, applied the handcuffs, and threw him 

into the back seat of the car, allegedly at the direction of Officer McClellan. 

II. Legal Standard. 

 While the decision to grant or deny a motion to amend is within the discretion of 

the district court, “Rule 15(a) declares that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when 

Case 2:13-cv-02161-DGC Document 24 Filed 07/10/14 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 

justice so requires’; this mandate is to be heeded.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 

(1962). The liberal policy in favor of amendments, however, is subject to some 

limitations. Motions to amend should be granted unless the district court determines that 

there has been a showing of: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith or dilatory motives on the part 

of the movant; (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments; 

(4) undue prejudice to the opposing party; or (5) futility of the proposed amendment. Id. 

at 182. 

II. Analysis. 

 Defendants urge the Court to deny the motion to amend because allowing Plaintiff 

to add Officer Williams would violate Arizona’s notice of claim statute, which requires 

that a plaintiff give notice of a claim against a public employee within 180 days of the 

date of accrual. Doc. 18 at 2 (citing A.R.S. § 12-821.01). Defendants argue that 

Plaintiffs’ claims accrued on November 26, 2012, the date of the traffic stop. Doc. 18 at 

3. Defendants also contend that Plaintiff knew there were two officers involved in the 

stop, but chose to name only one, and that Plaintiff failed to inquire about the names of 

both officers. Id. at 4-5. Defendants argue that the proposed amendment would be futile 

because any claim against Officer Williams is barred by failure to give notice. 

 Plaintiff argues that he contacted the City of Mesa to inquire about the name of the 

arresting officer and was given Officer McClellan’s name, but not Officer Williams’ 

name. Doc. 19 at 1. He argues that he was led to believe that he had appropriately 

named the officer who caused his injuries. 

 Arizona’s notice of claim statute requires that notice be provided to public 

employees within 180 days after a cause of action accrues. A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). A 

cause of action accrues “when the damaged parties realized he or she has been damaged 

and knows or reasonably should know the cause, source, act, event, instrumentality or 

condition that caused or contributed to the damage.” A.R.S. § 12-821.01(B). This 

knowledge includes the identity of the defendants, as courts have held that “knowledge of 

the identity of the defendant is a critical element in determining when a cause of action 

Case 2:13-cv-02161-DGC Document 24 Filed 07/10/14 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 

accrues.” Lawhon v. L.B.J. Inst. Supply, Inc., 765 P.2d 1003, 1005 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). 

 Plaintiff does not argue, however, that his claim did not accrue until he learned the 

identity of Officer Williams. For this and other reasons, it is not clear when the claim 

against Officer Williams accrued. 

 But even if the cause of action did not accrue until Plaintiff discovered the identity 

of Officer Williams during a deposition, that discovery would merely shift the date of 

accrual of the cause of action. It would not excuse Plaintiff from complying with the 

notice of claim statute, which is mandatory under Arizona law. Travis Scott v. Wenden 

Domestic Water Imp. Dist., CV13-01667-PHX-DGC, 2013 WL 5670920, *1 (D. Ariz. 

Oct. 17, 2013) (citing Salerno v. Espinoza, 115 P.3d 626, 628 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005); 

Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, 152 P.3d 490 (Ariz. 2007)). 

 Plaintiff has submitted no evidence that he has complied with the notice of claim 

statute for Officer Williams. Because Plaintiff cannot assert a claim against Officer 

Williams without complying with the statute, his amendment would be futile. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 17) is denied. 

 Dated this 10th day of July, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02161-DGC Document 24 Filed 07/10/14 Page 3 of 3