Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01514/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01514-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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 

Patrick E. Nixon and Jean-Marie Nixon,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Arizona Association of Manufactured 

Home Owners, Inc., 

Defendant.

No. CV-11-01514-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Pro se Plaintiffs Patrick E. Nixon and Jean-Marie Nixon filed a complaint against 

Defendant Arizona Association of Manufactured Home Owners, Inc., alleging violations 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and 

requesting declaratory and injunctive relief and civil penalties. Doc. 1. Defendant filed a 

motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 14) and Plaintiffs filed a response (Doc. 16). 

The Court granted the motion on February 9, 2012. Doc. 23. The Court found that 

Plaintiffs had failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim or to provide any factual 

detail about what happened that would entitle them to relief. Id. at 2. Because Plaintiffs 

are pro se, the Court granted leave to amend and instructed Plaintiffs on how to comply 

with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 

3. The Court also stated that Plaintiffs’ amended complaint must show that they had 

complied with required administrative procedures. Id. 

 Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 24, 2012, alleging claims under 

42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985(3) as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 

Case 2:11-cv-01514-DGC Document 37 Filed 05/16/12 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

(Doc. 27), and Defendant filed a second motion for judgment on the pleadings on 

March 8, 2012. Doc. 30. Although Plaintiffs had responded to the first motion for 

judgment on the pleadings and therefore clearly knew that a response was required and 

how to file one, Plaintiffs did not file a response to the second motion. As a result, 

Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition of the second motion. Doc. 34. 

Defendant also sought an extension of the discovery schedule. Doc. 36. For the reasons 

that follow, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and 

deny Defendant’s remaining motions as moot. 

I. Legal Standard. 

 A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(c) “is properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving 

party’s pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fajardo v. County of L.A., 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1998); see Elvig v. Calvin 

Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 955 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that in ruling on a 

Rule 12(c) motion the court must accept as true all allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint 

and treat as false the allegations in the defendant’s answer that contradict the plaintiff’s 

allegations). In other words, dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(c) is inappropriate if the facts 

as pled would entitle the plaintiff to a remedy. Merchants Home Delivery Serv., Inc. v. 

Hall & Co., 50 F.3d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir.1995). 

II. Discussion. 

 After having an opportunity to amend their complaint, Plaintiffs have once again 

failed to allege facts showing that either of them is entitled to a remedy. See Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). (“where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to 

infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has 

not ‘show[n]’ – ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 

 The amended complaint contains three specific allegations with respect to Patrick 

E. Nixon: that Defendant denied Mr. Nixon’s claims for expenses incurred on its behalf 

while he served on the association’s board of directors, that Defendant created a hostile 

Case 2:11-cv-01514-DGC Document 37 Filed 05/16/12 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

environment for him as a disabled veteran, and that Defendant retaliated against him for 

speaking out about its violations of bylaws and state and federal laws. Doc. 27, ¶¶ 1-3; 4-

5; 8. The amended complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support any of these 

assertions. It does not identify any expenses Mr. Nixon incurred on behalf of Defendant 

or the circumstances surrounding Defendant’s alleged denials for reimbursement from 

which the Court could reasonably infer that the denials were unlawful or motivated by 

discriminatory intent. 

 The complaint provides a single factual allegation in support of Mr. Nixon’s 

hostile environment claim – that, at a December 9, 2010 board meeting, the Treasurer 

screamed at Mr. Nixon in front of the board that “you are insane and your [sic] crazy” 

and continued to scream at him outside the building. Id., ¶¶ 4-5. The complaint fails to 

allege any circumstances surrounding this alleged act from which the Court reasonably 

could infer that Defendant intentionally created a hostile environment for Mr. Nixon on 

the basis of his disability. Nor does the complaint allege that Mr. Nixon was employed 

by Defendant. 

 The amended complaint does not allege any retaliatory actions that Mr. Nixon 

suffered for speaking out. 

 As the Court previously stated, “[t]he amended complaint must provide the factual 

basis for each claim and give Defendant ‘fair notice of what [Plaintiff’s] claim is and the 

grounds upon which it is based.’” Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005). 

The complaint clearly fails to do so. 

 The amended complaint makes two allegations with respect to Jean-Marie Nixon: 

that as “a highly qualified Hispanic female, with a disability and a known association 

with a disabled person,” Ms. Nixon received disparate treatment in the selection process 

for Education Director; and that she also suffered retaliatory conduct. Doc. 27, ¶¶ 6-7; 8. 

The amended complaint’s sole factual allegation with respect to Ms. Nixon’s disparate 

treatment is that she was subjected to an “unprecedented interview process on June 2, 

2011.” The complaint alleges no facts about the interview process or what made it 

Case 2:11-cv-01514-DGC Document 37 Filed 05/16/12 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

“unprecedented,” and provides no additional facts from which the Court reasonably could 

infer disparate treatment or retaliation. 

 Defendant explains in its motion why the complaint fails to state a claim under 42 

U.S.C. § 1981, which requires a showing of intentional racial discrimination; § 1983, 

which requires that Defendant be a state actor or take actions “under color of state law”; 

and § 1985(3), which requires a showing of a conspiracy. Doc. 30 at 4, 5, 11-12. To the 

extent that Plaintiffs attempt to make claims under the ADA or the Civil Rights Act, 

Defendant explains how these claims also fail. Id. at 6-11. In particular, Plaintiffs fail to 

allege any facts to support a disability under the ADA or to show that Defendant is an 

employer under Title I of the ADA, a State or local government entity under Title II, or 

that Plaintiffs were denied access to a place of public accommodation under Title III. See 

id. at 6-9. Plaintiffs similarly fail to set forth the prima facie elements for a claim under 

Title II or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. See id. at 10-11. In addition to the factual 

deficiencies of the complaint, Defendant notes that Plaintiffs have failed to show they 

pursued required administrative remedies under these Acts. Id. at 6-7, 10-11. 

 Defendant’s second motion for judgment on the pleadings is well taken. Because 

the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under any of the legal theories 

presented, and Plaintiffs have not responded or requested further leave to amend, the 

Court will grant judgment on the pleadings in favor of Defendant. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Defendant Defendant’s second motion for judgment on the pleadings 

(Doc. 30) is granted. 

 2. Defendant’s motion for summary disposition (Doc. 34) and its motion for 

extension of discovery (Doc. 36.) are denied as moot. 

 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this action. 

 Dated this 16th day of May, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01514-DGC Document 37 Filed 05/16/12 Page 4 of 4