Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01846/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01846-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

JOHN M. CARNES, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

TONY CAMPOS; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1846-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint

of Defendant Tim Long (Dkt. # 25) and Defendants Sonier and Tom Sheahan (Dkt. # 26).

Defendants Ron Walker, Tom Sockwell, Pete Byers, Buster Johnson, Mohave County,

Oskins, Cunningham, and Salvino joined in Defendants Sonier and Sheahan’s Motion. (Dkt.

# 37.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to dismiss and

grants Plaintiff leave to replead.

BACKGROUND

On November 21, 2008, Plaintiff John Carnes filed his First Amended Complaint

(“FAC”) asserting that all Defendants “targeted Plaintiff without probable cause and these

defendants meant by their actions to impact Plaintiff deleteriously and to rub his civil rights

into the dirt; and to damage him psychologically.” (Dkt. # 7 at 4.) Plaintiff’s FAC, however,

consists of only three pages of amorphous factual and legal allegations against sixteen

identifiable defendants and an indeterminate number of unidentifiable defendants. Indeed,

Case 2:08-cv-01846-GMS Document 43 Filed 03/26/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

the factual basis underlying the FAC is entirely missing, as few facts are even discernable

upon the face of the Complaint. Only one of the defendants – Cunningham – is even

mentioned by name in the FAC. (See id. at 3 (“Cunningham threatened Plaintiff more than

once with severe abuse without cause. Cunningham, a large man, meant what he said to the

Plaintiff.”).)

Nevertheless, Plaintiff attempts to assert twenty-two claims against all named

defendants. (See id. at 1.) Among the claims asserted are allegations that Defendants

violated various provisions of the Constitution and federal law, including the right to privacy,

the right to equal protection, the right to “life, liberty, freedom, [and] the use of property,”

and the right to be free of coercive activities. (Id.) Plaintiff also asserts state law claims of

false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, and fraud. (Id.)

Plaintiff appears to allege that each of the defendants undertook the same wrongful conduct

with respect to all twenty-two claims. 

Eleven of the defendants now move for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6), collectively arguing that dismissal is warranted due to Plaintiff’s failure

to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9, and 10. 

DISCUSSION

I. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 12(b)(6)

To survive a dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a

complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

action”; it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise the right of relief above the

speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). “The pleading

must contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion

[of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). While “a complaint need not

contain detailed factual allegations . . . it must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face.’” Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th

Cir. 2008) (quoting Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1974).

Case 2:08-cv-01846-GMS Document 43 Filed 03/26/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Similarly, although “a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations,”

Clemens, 534 F.3d at 1022, the Court will 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). Legal conclusions

couched as factual allegations are not given a presumption of truthfulness, and “conclusory

allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are not sufficient to defeat a motion to

dismiss.” Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998).

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), a

complaint generally must, at a minimum, satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8. Porter

v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir. 2003). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2),

a plaintiff is required to set forth a “short and plain statement” of the claim showing that the

plaintiff is entitled to relief and giving the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the

ground upon which it rests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47

(1957); Porter, 319 F.3d at 494; see also Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965 (holding that a

pleading must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise the right of relief above the

speculative level.”). Under Rule 8(a)(3), a plaintiff must include “a demand for the relief

sought.” Additionally, under Rule 8(d), “each allegation must be simple, concise and direct.”

See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) (requiring “[a] party [to] state its claims . . . in numbered

paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances”). 

Defendants argue that the FAC “fails to provide sufficient notice of the claims upon

which Plaintiff seeks relief, from whom that relief is sought, and which facts apply to which

claims or Defendants” and “is a generally unfocused and rambling assembly of facts, and

disconnected legal theories, without any real specification of the claims asserted against each

of the Defendants or the facts supporting a general violation of the elements of such claims.”

(Dkt. # 26 at 2.) Defendants characterize the FAC as “vague,” “lacking in specificity,” and

“conclusory.” (Dkt. # 26 at 3)

Case 2:08-cv-01846-GMS Document 43 Filed 03/26/09 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

After careful review of the FAC, the Court finds that the FAC falls far short of

satisfying the requirements of Rules 8 and 10. The FAC does not “put defendants fairly on

notice of the claims against them” sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff does not provide a “short and plain statement” for each claim nor does he include

a demand for relief. Rather, the FAC is amorphous and conclusory and fails to present the

necessary facts in an understandable context.

While Plaintiff lists numerous alleged federal and state claims, Plaintiff fails to set

forth factual allegations sufficient to support the elements of those claims at the pleading

stage. Indeed, Plaintiff only refers by name to one of the sixteen identifiable defendants in

the FAC, and even this reference is insufficient to put the referenced defendant fairly on

notice of the claims against him. The FAC simply does not plead “enough facts to state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Clemens, 534 F.3d at 1022. 

Additionally, as a complaint must give defendants fair notice of what a plaintiff’s

claims are and the grounds upon which they rest, collective allegations are improper.

Defendants cannot decipher which claims in the FAC are reasonably asserted against each

defendant. The FAC and Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ motions make clear that not

all Defendants are responsible for the same wrongful conduct. Aggregation of all Defendants

also violates Rule 10(b)’s mandate that “[a] party state its claims . . . in numbered paragraphs,

each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” (Emphasis added). 

II. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) – Allegations of Fraud

Where a complaint includes allegations of fraud, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)

requires the “party [to] state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or

mistake,” including an account of the “time, place, and specific content of the false

representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentations,” Edwards v.

Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004). “Rule 9(b) does not allow a

complaint to merely lump multiple defendants together but require[s] plaintiffs to

differentiate their allegations when suing more than one defendant . . . and inform each

defendant separately of the allegations surrounding his alleged participation in the fraud.”

Case 2:08-cv-01846-GMS Document 43 Filed 03/26/09 Page 4 of 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

1

Although several of the other defendants did not file or join in a motion to dismiss,

the FAC is nevertheless also dismissed against these nonmoving defendants as they are in

a position similar to that of the moving defendants. Silverton v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 644

F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A District Court may properly on its own motion dismiss

an action as to the defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such defendants are in

a position similar to that of moving defendants or where claims against such defendants are

integrally related.”); see also Abagninin v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 743 (9th Cir.

2008).

2

On March 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to allow him to

retain and “visit more with [his] attorney.” (Dkt. # 42 at 2.) Because the Court is granting

Plaintiff until April 24, 2009, to file an amended pleading, the motion for an extension of

time is denied as moot. 

- 5 -

Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 765 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). “To comply

with Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud must be specific enough to give defendants notice of the

particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charge so that they can defend

against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong.” Bly-Magee v.

California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Here, despite including allegations of fraud in the FAC, Plaintiff failed to allege with

any specificity the factual basis underlying the alleged fraud. Consequently, the Complaint

fails to state any valid claim for fraud. 

Because the FAC fails in several regards to satisfy the pleading requirements of

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9, and 10, it is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1

III. Leave to Amend

The Court is not compelled to grant Plaintiff leave to amend if an amendment would

be futile. Bonanno v. Thomas, 309 F.2d 320, 322 (9th Cir. 1962). On March 23, 2009,

Plaintiff informed the Court that he is seeking to retain counsel in the matter. (Dkt. # 41.)

Although it is unclear whether Plaintiff can cure the deficiencies in the FAC, even with

counsel, the Court will nevertheless grant Plaintiff another opportunity to replead his claims.2

To be clear, should Plaintiff elect to replead, Plaintiff MUST:

Case 2:08-cv-01846-GMS Document 43 Filed 03/26/09 Page 5 of 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

- 6 -

(1) present all allegations in short, plain statements with each claim for relief

identified in separate numbered paragraphs and sections, each limited as far as

practicable to a single set of circumstances; 

(2) specifically allege each legal right Plaintiff believes was violated, the specific

defendant(s) who violated the right, a sufficient factual context under Twombly to

give the defendant notice of what conduct or omission gives rise to the violation

(including how the defendant’s conduct or omission is connected to the violation of

Plaintiff’s rights), and the specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that defendant’s

conduct or omission;

(3) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9, plead allegations of fraud with

specificity, including the time, place, and specific conduct of EACH defendant

accused of fraud;

(4) otherwise cure the deficiencies noted in this Order. 

If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint and fails to comply with the provisions

of this Order, the action will be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming the dismissal with

prejudice of a complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and

largely irrelevant” and which failed to comply with Rule 8); Nevijel v. North Coat Life Ins.

Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming dismissal of an amended complaint that

was “equally verbose, confusing, and conclusory as the initial complaint”); Corcoran v.

Yorty, 347 F.2d 222, 223 (9th Cir. 1965) (affirming dismissal with prejudice of an amended

complaint that was “so verbose, confused and redundant that its true substance, if any, [was]

well disguised”). 

IV. Notice of Claim

In addition to the arguments supporting dismissal already addressed by the Court,

Defendants assert that “as to Plaintiff’s thirteen-or-so state law claims, Plaintiff has failed to

allege the underlying, timely served and properly constructed, A.R.S. § 12-821.01 notice of

Case 2:08-cv-01846-GMS Document 43 Filed 03/26/09 Page 6 of 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

- 7 -

claim which is a necessary prerequisite to the bringing of state law claims against public

entities and/or public officials.” (Dkt. # 26 at 3.) 

The notice of claims statute provides that all persons having a claim against a public

entity or public employee must provide notice of that claim within 180 days after the cause

of action accrues. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01(A). “The claim shall contain facts sufficient

to permit the public entity or public employee to understand the basis upon which liability

is claimed. The claim shall also contain a specific amount for which the claim can be settled

and the facts supporting that amount.” Id. If the claimant fails to timely file a proper notice

of claims, the action is barred. See id.

It is impossible to determine from the FAC whether Plaintiff asserts state law claims

against public entities or public employees. Therefore, should Plaintiff elect to file a second

amended complaint asserting state law claims against public entities or employees, Plaintiff

must allege compliance with A.R.S. § 12-821.01 and attach the notice of claim that was filed

with each public entity or public employee against whom Plaintiff asserts state law claims.

If Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 12-821.01, and is now

unable to do so, Plaintiff may not assert state law claims against any public entities or public

employees. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. ## 25, 26)

are GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 7)

is dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9, and 10. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than April 30, 2009, Plaintiff shall file

and serve: (1) a second amended complaint in compliance with this Order; or (2) a statement

that he abandons his claims. Should Plaintiff elect not to file a second amended complaint,

the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this matter without further order of the Court.

Case 2:08-cv-01846-GMS Document 43 Filed 03/26/09 Page 7 of 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

- 8 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time (Dkt.

# 42) is DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED this 26th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01846-GMS Document 43 Filed 03/26/09 Page 8 of 8