Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00421/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00421-0/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 

Pasquale Labate, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

George W. Bush, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV12-0421-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. (“Planned Parenthood”) has filed a 

motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 8(a), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Doc. 14. Defendant Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. 

(“PPFA”) joins in Planned Parenthood’s motion to dismiss. Doc. 40. Defendant Jennifer 

Sandman has filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction and also 

joins in Planned Parenthood’s motion to dismiss. Doc. 41. Plaintiff Pasquale Labate has 

responded to Planned Parenthood and PPFA’s motions by asking the Court to quash the 

motions, strike the motions, and impose sanctions. Docs. 80, 81. In addition, Plaintiff 

has filed a separate motion to quash Planned Parenthood’s motion to dismiss. Doc. 17. 

Planned Parenthood has filed a response to the motion to quash. Doc. 19. 

 Defendants Thomas J. Olmsted and John Ehrich have filed a motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), or, in the alternative, Rule 12(b)(6). Doc. 20. Plaintiff has 

responded with a motion to quash (Doc. 32) and a motion for sanctions (Doc. 33). 

Defendants Olmsted and Ehrich have filed a response to the motion to quash and the 

Case 2:12-cv-00421-DGC Document 93 Filed 05/18/12 Page 1 of 11
- 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 

motion for sanctions, and a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. Doc. 64. 

 Defendant Thomas C. Horne has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 

Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Doc. 62. Plaintiff asks the Court to strike the motion and 

impose sanctions. Doc. 70. 

 Plaintiff also moves for leave to amend the complaint to add additional 

defendants. Doc. 63. Plaintiff moves for leave to amend the complaint to name the 

correct party as defendant. Doc. 69. Defendant Horne opposes these motions to amend. 

Doc. 73. 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. 27. Defendant 

Planned Parenthood has responded to the motion. Doc. 30. 

 Finally, Plaintiff has filed a motion to “permanently remove the pre-trial 

management conference,” which the Court construes as a motion to vacate. Doc. 92. 

 For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Planned Parenthood’s motion to 

dismiss (Doc. 14), grant PPFA’s joinder in Planned Parenthood’s motion to dismiss 

(Doc. 40), grant Ms. Sandman’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 41), and grant the remaining 

motions to dismiss (Docs. 20, 62). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions to quash 

(Docs. 17, 32), motion for sanctions (Doc. 33), motion to strike (Doc. 70), motion for 

preliminary injunction (Doc. 27), and motions for leave to amend (Docs. 63, 69). 

I. Background. 

 Plaintiff’s complaint is based on his objections to same-sex marriage, abortion, 

and capital punishment. See Doc. 1. Plaintiff alleges that former President George W. 

Bush wrote a letter to Plaintiff agreeing that “marriage is a sacred union between a man 

and a woman” and affirming his commitment “to doing what is legally necessary to 

defend the sanctity of marriage.” Doc. 1, at 4-5, ¶ 11. Plaintiff claims that former 

President Bush must return to the White House and sign into law a ban against same-sex 

marriage. Id. at 5, ¶ 13. 

 Plaintiff claims that President Barack Obama must appear in the United States 

District Court for the District of Arizona and sign into law that same-sex marriage is 

Case 2:12-cv-00421-DGC Document 93 Filed 05/18/12 Page 2 of 11
- 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 

permanently banned. Id. at 6, ¶ 1. Plaintiff also claims that President Obama must ban 

abortion. Id. at 6, ¶ 4. 

 Plaintiff sues the PPFA “by Jennifer Sandman.” Id. at 8, ¶ 18. Plaintiff claims 

that Ms. Sandman is engaging in a crime by attempting to legalize abortion. Id.

 Plaintiff sues Planned Parenthood because they represent women who undergo 

abortions. Id. at 8, ¶ 20. 

 Plaintiff sues Arizona Attorney General Thomas C. Horne, claiming that he must 

withdraw a motion filed with the Arizona Supreme Court “to ex[ecute] the [k]illers.” Id.

at 9, ¶ 1. Plaintiff has not identified the specific motion at issue. He argues that the State 

of Arizona must ban executions and that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer must sign a law 

that permanently bans executions. Id. at 9, ¶ 2. 

 Plaintiff also claims to sue the State of Arizona, although he has not named the 

State as a defendant. Id. at 9, ¶ 3. He claims that Governor Brewer must sign a law that 

bans same-sex marriage. Id. at 10, ¶ 4. Plaintiff explains that he seeks to sue the State of 

Arizona and the entire world, because most people on earth are committing violations 

against the will of the Lord God. Id. at 10, ¶ 22. Plaintiff therefore challenges the 

Arizona constitution, the Privacy Act, and the right to choose. Id. at 10-11, ¶ 3. 

 Plaintiff sues Defendant Chris Gregoire as “Governor of Olympia, Washington 

DC 98504.” Id. at 12, ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges that Governor Gregoire recently signed a law 

permitting same-sex marriage. Id. Plaintiff asks Governor Gregoire to step down as 

governor and to stop making false law. Id. at 12, ¶ 4. 

 Plaintiff sues Bishop Thomas Olmsted. Plaintiff alleges that despite several phone 

calls, Bishop Olmsted did not believe Plaintiff’s assertion that the Lord God did appear to 

Plaintiff. Id. at 13, ¶ 2. Plaintiff claims that Bishop Olmsted blocked Plaintiff’s ability to 

deliver the Lord God’s message to the people. Id. at 13, ¶ 3. 

 Plaintiff sues Pastor John D. Ehrich of the Saint Thomas Catholic Church. Id.

at 14. Plaintiff alleges that he met with Pastor Ehrich and asked to deliver a message 

from the Lord God to the parish. Id. at 14, ¶ 1. Pastor Ehrich denied this request because 

Case 2:12-cv-00421-DGC Document 93 Filed 05/18/12 Page 3 of 11
- 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 

Plaintiff did not call him “Father.” Id. at 14, ¶ 2. Plaintiff claims that Pastor Ehrich must 

prove how Plaintiff became his son. Id. at 14, ¶ 3. 

II. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. 

 A. Planned Parenthood’s Motion to Dismiss. 

 Planned Parenthood moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 8(a), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). Doc. 14. PPFA and Defendant Sandman 

join the motion. Docs. 40, 41. 

 A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) can 

be either a facial or factual attack on the allegations. Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. Gen. Tel. & 

Elec. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). A facial attack occurs when the moving 

party asserts that the allegations contained in the complaint are “insufficient on their face 

to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 

(9th Cir. 2004). In a factual attack, the moving party “disputes the truth of the allegations 

that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction.” Id. If the attack on 

jurisdiction is facial, the complaint’s factual allegations are taken as true and construed in 

favor of the non-moving party. Jacobson v. Katzer, 609 F. Supp. 2d 925, 930 (N.D. Cal. 

2009) (citing Fed’n of African Am. Contractors v. City of Oakland, 96 F.3d 1204, 1207 

(9th Cir. 1996)). If the attack is factual, the plaintiff’s allegations are not entitled to a 

presumption of truthfulness, a court may look beyond the pleadings to resolve factual 

disputes, and the plaintiff has the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Safe Air for 

Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039. 

 When analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim to relief under 

Rule 12(b)(6), the well-pled factual allegations are taken as true and construed in the light 

most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 

(9th Cir. 2009). Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not entitled to the 

assumption of truth, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009), and therefore are 

insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, In re Cutera Sec. 

Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the 

Case 2:12-cv-00421-DGC Document 93 Filed 05/18/12 Page 4 of 11
- 5 - 

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 

complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The court may not assume that the 

plaintiff can prove facts different from those alleged in the complaint. See Associated 

Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983); 

Jack Russell Terrier Network of N. Cal. v. Am. Kennel Club, Inc., 407 F.3d 1027, 1035 

(9th Cir. 2005). Dismissal is appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal 

theory, lacks sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory, or contains 

allegations disclosing some absolute defense or bar to recovery. See Balistreri v. 

Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); Weisbuch v. County of L.A., 

119 F.3d 778, 783, n.1 (9th Cir. 1997). 

 Plaintiff’s complaint does not provide any jurisdictional basis. It does not comply 

with the Rule 8 requirement of “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s 

jurisdiction[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The complaint makes clear Plaintiff’s views on 

same-sex marriage, abortion, and capital punishment, but does not allege any causes of 

action or cognizable legal theories. The complaint does not contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a)(2). Dismissal is therefore appropriate under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). 

 Plaintiff responds to Planned Parenthood’s motion to dismiss by asking the Court 

to strike the motion and to issue sanctions against Jennifer Sandman, allegedly the 

president or manager of PPFA, and Lawrence J. Rosenfeld and Daniel B. Pasternak, 

attorneys for Planned Parenthood. Doc. 80, at 2; Doc. 81, at 2. Plaintiff has also filed a 

“motion to quash” the motion to dismiss. Doc. 17. Planned Parenthood has filed a 

response. Doc. 19. The Court construes the motion to quash as a response in opposition 

to Planned Parenthood’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff claims that “[t]his legal action is 

one of a kind, since the b[eginning] of time and maybe the l[a]st to the end of time,” and 

that as “the servant of the Lord God” he “does not h[a]ve to establish this Court’s 

jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint.” Doc. 17, at 2, ¶¶ 4, 5. Plaintiff 

further claims that the complaint is not his complaint, but rather the Lord God’s 

Case 2:12-cv-00421-DGC Document 93 Filed 05/18/12 Page 5 of 11
- 6 - 

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 

complaint, and that the Lord God gives the Court “all the jurisdiction [it] needs.” Id.

at ¶ 6. While the Court respects Plaintiff’s strongly held religious beliefs, and fully 

acknowledges Plaintiff’s right to hold those beliefs, this Court’s jurisdiction is set by 

Congress and its procedural practices are dictated by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Plaintiff’s responsive briefs (Docs. 17, 80, 81) provide no basis for 

concluding that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims or that 

those claims comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 To the extent that Plaintiff’s motion to quash (Doc. 17) can be construed as a 

motion to strike Planned Parenthood’s motion to dismiss, the motion fails to meet the 

standard for relief under Rule 12(f). That rule allows the Court, in its discretion, to 

“strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, 

or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Plaintiff has not shown that Planned 

Parenthood’s motion to dismiss satisfies any of these requirements. 

 The Court will grant Planned Parenthood’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 14), and will 

deny Plaintiff’s motion to quash (Doc. 17). 

B. Defendant Sandman’s Motion to Dismiss. 

 It is unclear whether Jennifer Sandman has been named as a defendant in this case. 

The complaint names PPFA “by Jennifer Sandman.” Doc. 1, at 2. It appears that 

Plaintiff’s claims are against PPFA in its capacity as a corporate entity, and not against 

Sandman in her individual or personal capacity. Ms. Sandman appears for the limited 

purpose of moving to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against her, to the extent such claims are 

in fact alleged, based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Doc. 41. 

 Because the Court is resolving the motion to dismiss without holding an 

evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff “need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional 

facts to withstand the motion.” Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995); 

see Brainerd v. Governors of the Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1258 (9th Cir. 1989). 

The Court may assert either general or specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. 

 The Court may assert general jurisdiction over a defendant if her activities in the 

Case 2:12-cv-00421-DGC Document 93 Filed 05/18/12 Page 6 of 11
- 7 - 

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 

forum state are substantial or continuous and systematic, even if Plaintiff’s claims are 

unrelated to those activities. See Haisten v. Grass Valley Med. Reimbursement Fund, 

Ltd., 784 F.2d 1392, 1396 (9th Cir. 1986). Ms. Sandman has been a New York resident 

since 1999. Doc. 41-1, ¶ 3. She has never lived or worked in Arizona. Id. at ¶¶ 4-5. She 

has never owned, leased, rented, or controlled real property, personal property, or assets 

in Arizona, and has never owned a business, held any professional licenses, bank 

accounts, agents, employees, offices, telephone listings, or mailing addresses in Arizona. 

Id. at ¶¶ 6-14. She has only been to Arizona a total of three times, twice in her capacity 

as an employee of PPFA for the purposes of attending state court proceedings in litigation 

brought by Planned Parenthood, and the third time for personal vacation. Id. at ¶¶ 22-23. 

Ms. Sandman clearly lacks the contact level necessary to establish general jurisdiction. 

 For specific jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit applies a three-part test. Specific 

personal jurisdiction exists if (1) the defendant purposefully availed herself of the 

privileges of conducting activities in the forum, (2) the claims arise out of or result from 

the defendant’s forum-related activities, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. 

See Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000); 

Brainerd, 873 F.2d at 1259. Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal 

jurisdiction. See, e.g., Ziegler v. Indian River Cnty., 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Plaintiff has not alleged that Ms. Sandman conducted activities in Arizona that would 

constitute purposeful availment. An employee’s contacts with a state are not to be judged 

according to their employer’s activities. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790 (1984). 

Rather, each defendant’s contacts with the forum state must be assessed individually. Id. 

Plaintiff cannot satisfy the first element required for specific personal jurisdiction. Nor 

can Plaintiff show that his claims arise out of or result from Ms. Sandman’s forumrelated activities. Ms. Sandman is an attorney and has never provided any abortion or 

abortion-related services in Arizona or elsewhere; her activities are limited solely to 

representing PPFA affiliates in legal matters. Doc. 41-1, at ¶ 22. Plaintiff cannot 

establish that his claims, to the extent they are alleged against Ms. Sandman personally, 

Case 2:12-cv-00421-DGC Document 93 Filed 05/18/12 Page 7 of 11
- 8 - 

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 

arose out of or relate to her conduct in Arizona in her individual, personal capacity. The 

Court will grant Ms. Sandman’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

C. Remaining Motions to Dismiss. 

 Bishop Olmsted, Reverend Ehrich, and Arizona Attorney General Horne have also 

filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Docs. 20, 62. Plaintiff 

has responded by moving to quash the motions and moving for sanctions against John C. 

Kelly, attorney for Bishop Olmsted and Reverend Ehrich. Docs. 32, 33. Plaintiff has 

responded to Arizona Attorney General Horne’s motion to dismiss by moving to strike 

the motion and moving for sanctions against the State of Arizona. Doc. 70. 

 These motions to dismiss make the same arguments as Planned Parenthood’s 

motion to dismiss – that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. 

The Court will grant these motions for the same reasons it is granting Planned 

Parenthood’s motion. 

III. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. 27. He seeks to 

enjoin PPFA from providing abortion services, including supplying birth control and 

contraceptive medication; to enjoin any state supreme court from executions; and to 

enjoin any court or “law person” in the country from marrying a same-sex couple. 

Doc. 27, at 4. Planned Parenthood has filed a response. Doc. 30. 

 To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show that he is likely 

to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 

of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction 

is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 

374 (2008). The test includes a sliding scale. If the plaintiff shows that the balance of 

hardships will tip sharply in his favor, he need not make as strong a showing of the 

likelihood of success on the merits B the existence of serious questions will suffice. 

Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). 

 Plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to prevail on the merits, nor that he has 

Case 2:12-cv-00421-DGC Document 93 Filed 05/18/12 Page 8 of 11
- 9 - 

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 

raised serious questions. As noted, Plaintiff has provided no basis for the Court to 

conclude that it has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. The Court accordingly 

will deny the motion for a preliminary injunction. 

IV. Leave to Amend. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add employees of 

the State of Arizona as additional defendants. Doc. 63. Plaintiff has also filed a motion 

for leave to amend the complaint to name the correct party, explaining that he intended to 

name the State of Arizona as a defendant rather than Arizona Attorney General Horne. 

Doc. 69. Attorney General Horne opposes the motion for leave to amend. Doc. 73. 

 The Supreme Court “‘has consistently held that an unconsenting State is immune 

from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another 

State.’” Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 

(1993) (quoting Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974)). “Absent waiver, 

neither a State nor agencies acting under its control may ‘be subject to suit in federal 

court.’” Id. (citations omitted). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 

amend to name the State of Arizona as a party. Doc. 69. Such an amendment would be 

futile in light of the State of Arizona’s Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. See 

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (leave to amend may be denied as futile); 

Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming 

denial of leave where the complaint could not be saved by any amendment). 

 In the Ninth Circuit, pro se litigants are entitled to notice of the complaint’s 

deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action unless it is 

absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment. 

See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995); Cato v. United States, 70 

F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, 295 F.3d 966, 

976 (9th Cir. 2002). This is one of the rare cases where it is absolutely clear that the 

deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. The claims Plaintiff seeks 

to bring – stopping abortions, executions, and same-sex marriages because they are 

Case 2:12-cv-00421-DGC Document 93 Filed 05/18/12 Page 9 of 11
- 10 - 

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 

against the will of God – simply are not cognizable in a United States District Court. 

Plaintiff therefore will not be granted leave to amend. 

V. Case Management Conference. 

A Rule 16 conference is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 24, at 4:00 pm. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion to “permanently remove the pre-trial management 

conference,” which the Court construes as a motion to vacate. Doc. 92. Plaintiff argues 

that the lawsuit is non-negotiable and that all parties must be present at the time of trial. 

Doc. 92, at 1. The Court will deny the motion to vacate, but will vacate the conference in 

any event because of the dismissal of this case. 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendant Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc.’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) 

is granted. 

 2. Defendant Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.’s joinder in 

Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc.’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 40) is granted. 

 3. Defendant Jennifer Sandman’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 41) is granted. 

 4. Defendants Thomas J. Olmsted and John Ehrich’s motion to dismiss 

(Doc. 20) is granted. 

 5. Defendant Thomas C. Horne’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 62) is granted. 

 6. Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc.’s 

motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) is denied. 

 7. Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendants Olmsted and Ehrich’s motion to 

dismiss (Doc. 32), Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Doc. 33), and Plaintiff’s 

motion to strike Defendant Horne’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 70) are 

denied. 

 8. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 27) is denied. 

 9. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to name the correct party (Doc. 69) is 

denied. 

 10. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to add additional defendants (Doc. 63) 

Case 2:12-cv-00421-DGC Document 93 Filed 05/18/12 Page 10 of 11
- 11 - 

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 

is denied. 

11. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate (Doc. 92) is denied. 

 12. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. 

 Dated this 17th day of May, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00421-DGC Document 93 Filed 05/18/12 Page 11 of 11