Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00277/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00277-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Tony Nixon, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

William Stiness, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-0277-TUC-CKJ

ORDER 

 Plaintiff brought this civil rights action in the Superior Court of Santa Cruz 

County, Arizona, and on June 26, 2015, it was removed by the United States.1

 (Doc. 1.) 

The Complaint is confusing; it appears to seek money damages as a result of alleged 

unlawful actions involving his arrest and prosecution related to the criminal case United 

States v. Tony Nixon, CR-14-00668-TUC-DCB.2

 (Doc. 1-4 at 38, Attach. (CR-14-00668, 

Doc. 63, “Motion to Suppress Material Witness Statements”).) In that criminal case, 

Plaintiff was convicted of transporting illegal aliens for profit. Plaintiff alleges in the 

Complaint that on March 10, 2014, he drove to Arivaca, Arizona to pick up a young man 

 1

 A Notice of Substitution was filed substituting the United States of America as 

Defendant in place of the individual Defendants. (Doc. 3). John S. Leonardo is the 

United States Attorney, District of Arizona, and Defendant Brian R. Decker is the 

Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) who handled Plaintiff’s criminal case on behalf 

of the United States. The other individual Defendants are Border Patrol Agents. 

2

 The Complaint was not screened to determine if it states a claim. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A. 

Case 4:15-cv-00277-CKJ-CRP Document 41 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 8
- 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 

at the request of a family member. The young man allegedly asked Plaintiff to pick up his 

“two friends” and Plaintiff was stopped by Border Patrol agents. Plaintiff alleges that an 

agent drove Plaintiff’s vehicle to the border patrol checkpoint and Plaintiff was told he 

was under arrest. The document attached to the Complaint is a Motion to Suppress 

Material Witness Statements in the criminal case. (CR-14-00668, Doc. 63.) 

 The Government filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 29, 2015.3

 (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff 

filed a “Motion Against Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Claim” construed as a Response 

(Doc. 14), Defendant filed a Reply in Support of United States’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 

15), Plaintiff filed another “Motion Against Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Claim,” 

construed as a Supplemental Response (Doc. 16) and Defendant United States filed a 

Surreply (Doc. 22). This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle. (Doc. 

12.) 

 On February 11, 2016, the Magistrate Judge heard oral argument on Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 35). On February 16, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a 

Report and Recommendation (R & R) recommending that the Motion be granted. (Doc. 

37.) The R & R gave the parties 10 days to file written objections. (Id. at 9.) On 

February 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Another Conference Hearing on 

Understand and Clarification of Static Conference Hearing on Evident.”4

 (Doc. 38.) On 

March 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint. (Doc. 39.) 

 The Court has reviewed the Complaint, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4), Plaintiff’s 

“Motion Against Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Claim” construed as a Response (Doc. 

14), Defendant’s Reply in Support of United States’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15), 

 

3

 A notice advising Plaintiff of his obligation to respond to the Motion to Dismiss 

was provided. (Doc. 5.) 4

 For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will deny the request for the hearing. 

Moreover, even if the Court were to construe the Motion as Plaintiff’s objections to the R 

& R, Plaintiff does not provide any additional facts to support his arguments or indicate 

which facts contained in the R & R are incorrect. 

Case 4:15-cv-00277-CKJ-CRP Document 41 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 8
- 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 

Plaintiff’s second “Motion Against Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Claim,” construed as 

a Supplemental Response (Doc. 16), and Defendant’s Surreply (Doc. 22), the R & R, 

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Another Conference Hearing on Understand and Clarification of 

Static Conference Hearing on Evident.” (Doc. 38.), and Defendant’s response (Doc. 40). 

 The Court will adopt the R & R, grant the Motion to Dismiss, deny the Motion to 

Amend the Complaint, and terminate the action. 

II. Legal Standard 

 The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the R & R. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to 

portions of the R & R. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 

1999); see also, Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

III. Discussion 

 Defendant United States asserts three grounds for dismissal of the Complaint: 

(1) Plaintiff has not demonstrated a waiver of sovereign immunity and Plaintiff has not 

alleged or shown that he exhausted administrative remedies as required by the Federal 

Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); (2) all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred 

by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); and (3) U.S. Attorney Leonardo and AUSA 

Decker are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity; thus, the claims asserted against 

them in their individual capacity are barred. 

 The R & R finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before 

filing his lawsuit, that the claims are barred by Heck, and that Defendants Leonardo and 

Decker are entitled to absolute immunity. (Doc. 37.) In his motion, Plaintiff seeks 

clarification whether he filed his civil law suits5

 before filing his administrative claim 

 

5

 Plaintiff has other cases pending in this Court: Nixon v. Francis, 15 CV-0247-

JGZ (CRP), and Nixon v. Mccqueen, 15 CV-0417-BGM. Hearings before the Magistrate Judge on November 19, 2015 and February 11, 2016, in the instant case were combined 

with hearings in Nixon v. Francis, 15 CV-0247-JGZ (CRP). (See 15-0277-CKJ-CRP, 

Docs. 20, 35; 15 CV-0247-JGZ (CRP), Docs. 35, 50.) Both of those cases involve claims 

arising from the events leading to Plaintiff’s conviction in the criminal case. 

Case 4:15-cv-00277-CKJ-CRP Document 41 Filed 03/10/16 Page 3 of 8
- 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 

form and appears to argue that even if filed in the wrong order, it was filed within the 

time frame and the cases can be accepted or refiled. (Doc. 38 at 2.) He notes that he has 

been found guilty in his criminal case and there is an appeal pending. (Id. at 2-3.) He 

asks if he can file the civil lawsuits without waiting for the overturning of the criminal 

cases. He argues that Brian Decker and Plaintiff’s former attorney Tyler D. Francis 

“cannot use immunity they was not acting within the law.” (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff asserts 

that Decker was required to contact Plaintiff’s former attorney Francis when Decker took 

a new statement from the material witnesses. According to Plaintiff, Decker cannot get 

immunity from a violation of federal law and the Border Patrol agents cannot get 

immunity. 

A. FTCA and exhaustion of administrative remedies 

 The R & R ruled against Plaintiff on this defense because the administrative claim 

forms Plaintiff submitted are dated August 30, 2015 which is after the lawsuit was filed 

and a prematurely filed FTCA “lawsuit cannot become timely by the passage of time 

after the complaint is filed.” Price v. United States, 69 F.3d 46, 54 (5th Cir. 1995); Davis 

v. United States, 944 F. Supp. 2d 36, 39-40 (D.D.C. 2013). 

 In his objections, Plaintiff seeks clarification whether he filed his civil lawsuits 

before filing administrative claim forms and appears to argue that even if filed in the 

wrong order, it was filed within the time frame and the cases can be accepted or refiled. 

(Doc. 38 at 2.) 

 The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly ruled that Plaintiff cannot cure 

the untimely filing of the administrative claim form for purposes of this lawsuit; that is, 

this lawsuit must be dismissed because Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative 

remedies before the lawsuit was commenced. But as the Magistrate Judge observed, “the 

action may be refiled if and when the plaintiff can fully satisfy the FTCA’s exhaustion 

requirement.” (Doc. 37 at 6, citing Cureton v. United States Marshal Service, 322 F. 

Supp. 2d 23, 27 (D.D.C. 2004); Robinson v. United States, 2014 WL 2940454 (M.D. Pa. 

June 30, 2014).) 

Case 4:15-cv-00277-CKJ-CRP Document 41 Filed 03/10/16 Page 4 of 8
- 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 

B. Heck bar 

The R & R notes that the Complaint appears to assert unlawful arrest and 

prosecution. As noted a “Motion to Suppress Material Witness Statements” is attached to 

the Complaint and shows the case caption as United States v. Tony Nixon, CR-14-00668.6

(Doc. 1-4 at 38). As the R & R observes, the docket in this criminal case shows that 

Plaintiff was indicted on April 9, 2014 on charges of transporting illegal aliens for profit, 

that he was found guilty of the charges after a bench trial on February 26, 2015, and that 

on September 14, 2015, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. (See CR-14-00668-

TUC-DCB, Doc. 27, 113, 158.) Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on September 15, 2015. 

(See id. Doc. 159.) AUSA Decker was the prosecutor in the case. 

 The R & R finds that the Complaint is premature because the conviction has not 

been reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. (Doc. 37 at 7, citing Heck, 512 U.S. 

at 487-88). The rationale of Heck has been extended to cases brought under the FTCA or 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Erlin v. United States, 

364 F.3d 1127, 1133 (9th Cir. 2004) (FTCA); Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 

1996) (Bivens). Plaintiff does not object, and the Court finds no clear error. 

 

6

 The transcript of the final day of the bench trial shows that the evidence was 

undisputed that Plaintiff was stopped near the border driving his own car with three 

passengers, two of whom were undocumented persons. The conviction demonstrates 

probable cause for the arrest. (CR-14-00668, Doc. 140); see Cabrera v. City of 

Huntington Park, 159 F3d 374 (9th Cir. 1998). As noted, the Motion to Suppress related 

to material witness statements in the criminal case. (Id. Doc. 63.) Magistrate Judge 

Leslie A. Bowman issued a Report and Recommendation on November 10, 2014 

recommending that the Court deny the Motion to Suppress. (CR-14-00668, Doc. 81.) 

On January 15, 2016, Judge Jorgenson adopted the Report and Recommendation and 

denied the Motion to Suppress. (Id. Doc. 95.) Later, the Court granted a motion in limine

to admit the material witness video depositions, and the material witness depositions are 

included in the government’s witness list. (Docs. 110, 114.) Witness Andrade-Queveda 

testified by video deposition the first day of trial. (Doc. 138 at 86.) Thus, success on 

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims would necessarily invalidate the conviction. See Heck, 512 U.S. 

at 486. 

Case 4:15-cv-00277-CKJ-CRP Document 41 Filed 03/10/16 Page 5 of 8
- 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 

 Plaintiff notes that he has been found guilty in his criminal cases and there is an 

appeal pending. He asks if he can file the civil lawsuit cases without waiting for the 

overturning of the criminal cases. As the Magistrate Judge said in the R & R, to the 

extent that Plaintiff seeks damages for actions undertaken by government officials that 

allegedly resulted in his unlawful arrest, imprisonment, prosecution and conviction, no 

cause of action for damages has yet accrued based on Heck. The FTCA claims do not 

accrue until Plaintiff has successfully challenged his conviction in a direct or collateral 

attack. See Erlin, 364 F.3d at 1130-34. In other words, Plaintiff does not yet have claims 

for unlawful arrest and prosecution, and if he files his lawsuit before his criminal 

conviction is invalidated, the new civil lawsuit is likely to be dismissed as barred by 

Heck. 

 C. Immunity of Leonardo and Decker 

The R & R notes that the Complaint mentions AUSA Decker and United States 

Attorney Leonardo regarding Plaintiff’s request for money damages without asserting 

any specific allegation against them or conduct by them. (Doc. 4- 1, Compl. at 33). The 

“Motion to Suppress Material Witness Statements” attached to the Complaint related to 

United States v. Tony Nixon, Case No. CR-14-00668 and refers to AUSA Decker’s 

actions in interviewing witnesses for trial. The R & R concludes that “[t]o the extent that 

Plaintiff has asserted any claim regarding actions taken by U.S. Attorney Leonardo and 

AUSA Decker, the claims arise out of their actions in indicting and prosecuting 

Plaintiff’s criminal case. Such actions are ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of 

the criminal process’” and any claims asserted against them in the Complaint are barred 

by absolute immunity. (Doc. 37 at 8, citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 

(1976).)

 In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that Brian Decker and former attorney Tyler D. 

Francis7

 “cannot use immunity they was not acting within the law.” He attaches to his 

objections the transcript from the Motion to Suppress. 

 

7

 Tyler Francis is not a Defendant in the instant lawsuit; he is a Defendant in Nixon 

Case 4:15-cv-00277-CKJ-CRP Document 41 Filed 03/10/16 Page 6 of 8
- 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 

 First, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation on the immunity issue does not 

relate to either the Border Patrol agents or Francis, who is not a defendant in this case. 

Plaintiff does not like the application of the doctrine of absolute immunity but that is not 

a ground for an objection. The Magistrate Judge observed that Plaintiff’s criminal case is 

on appeal and there has been no determination that the prosecutor acted unlawfully. The 

Court finds no error. 

IV. Motion to Amend the Complaint 

The Court has reviewed the proposed First Amended Complaint (FAC). It is 

rambling and asserts the same claims arising out of the arrest and prosecution of the same 

criminal case and names the same Defendants as in the original complaint. The Court has 

found that the claims are barred by Heck until the conviction is reversed, expunged, or 

otherwise invalidated. The Motion is denied and leave to amend is futile because 

Plaintiff cannot show at this time that his conviction is reversed, expunged, or otherwise 

invalidated. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) Plaintiff’s “Motion for Another Conference Hearing on Understand and 

Clarification of Static Conference Hearing on Evident” (Doc. 38) is denied. 

 (2) The R & R (Doc 37) is adopted. 

 (3) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is granted. 

 (4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 39) is denied. 

 (5) The action is terminated with prejudice as to the claims against Leonardo 

and Decker discussed in the R & R and without prejudice on all other claims. The Clerk 

of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

 v. Francis, 15 CV-0247-JGZ (CRP). 

Case 4:15-cv-00277-CKJ-CRP Document 41 Filed 03/10/16 Page 7 of 8
- 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) The Clerk of Court is directed to accept no further filings in this matter 

except in connection with an appeal. 

 Dated this 9th day of March, 2016. 

Case 4:15-cv-00277-CKJ-CRP Document 41 Filed 03/10/16 Page 8 of 8