Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02756/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02756-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

Gary Donahoe and Cherie Donahoe,

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava

Arpaio, husband and wife; Andrew

Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband

and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R.

Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy

Chief David Hendershott and Anna

Hendershott, husband and wife;

William Montgomery only in his

official capacity as Maricopa County

Attorney; Maricopa County, a

municipal entity; and John Does I-X;

Jane Does I-X; Black Corporations IV; and White Partnerships, I-V,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Lead No. CV10-2756-PHX-NVW

Consolidated with:

No. CV10-2757-PHX-NVW

No. CV10-2758-PHX-NVW

No. CV11-0116-PHX-NVW

No. CV11-0262-PHX-NVW

No. CV11-0473-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Susan Schuerman, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava

Arpaio, husband and wife; Andres

Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband

and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R.

Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy

Chief David Hendershott and Anna

Hendershott, husband and wife;

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 70 Filed 05/26/11 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

William Montgomery only in his

official capacity as Maricopa County

Attorney; Maricopa County, a

municipal entity; and John Does I-X;

Jane Does I-X; Black Corporations

I-V; and White Partnerships, I-V, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Sandra Wilson and Paul Wilson,

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava

Arpaio, husband and wife; Andres

Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband

and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R.

Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy

Chief David Hendershott and Anna

Hendershott, husband and wife;

William Montgomery only in his

official capacity as Maricopa County

Attorney; Maricopa County, a

municipal entity; and John Does I-X;

Jane Does I-X; Black Corporations

I-V; and White Partnerships, I-V,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Conley D. Wolfswinkel, a single man;

Brandon D. Wolfswinkel, a single

man; Ashton A. Wolfswinkel, a single

man; Vanderbilt Farms, LLC, an

Arizona limited liability company;

ABCDW, LLC, an Arizona limited

liability company; Stone Canyon,

LLC, an Arizona limited liability

company; Vistoso Partners, LLC, an

Arizona limited liability company;

and W Harquahala, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company; 

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 70 Filed 05/26/11 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

v.

Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio,

husband and wife; David Hendershott

and Anna Hendershott, husband and

wife; Jonathan Halverson and Jane

Doe Halverson, husband and wife;

Patrick Roshetko and Jane Doe

Roshetko, husband and wife; Andrew

P. Thomas and Anne Thomas,

husband and wife; Lisa Aubuchon

and Peter R. Pestalozzi, wife and

husband; William Montgomery only

in his official capacity as Maricopa

County Attorney; and Maricopa

County, a municipal entity,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Stephen Wetzel and Nancy Wetzel,

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava

Arpaio, husband and wife; Andrew

Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband

and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R.

Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Chief

Deputy David Hendershott and Anna

Hendershott, husband and wife;

William Montgomery, only in his

official capacity as Maricopa County

Attorney; Maricopa County, a

municipal entity; and John Does I-X;

Jane Does I-X; Black Corporations

I-V; and White Partnerships, I-V,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox, wife and

husband,

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

)

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 70 Filed 05/26/11 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

v.

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava

Arpaio, husband and wife; Andrew

Thomas and Anne Thomas husband

and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R.

Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy

Chief Sheriff David Hendershott and

Anna Hendershott, husband and wife;

William Montgomery only in his

official capacity as Maricopa County

Attorney; Maricopa County, a

governmental entity;

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Before the Court is Defendant William Montgomery’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to

Dismiss, which is pending in CV11-0116 (“Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs”) (Doc. 18). Defendant

Montgomery is the current Maricopa County attorney. The Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs have sued

Montgomery in his official capacity as County attorney, and not in his personal capacity.

The Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs do not claim that Montgomery himself committed any

wrongdoing, or that he is responsible for the wrongdoing of any other party; indeed,

Montgomery became County attorney only after the events at issue in these actions took

place.

When a state or local official is sued in his official capacity, the practical effect is the

same as suing the County itself for damages. Because the Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs have also

named the County as a defendant in their action, there is no purpose in maintaining

Montgomery as a defendant; the potential for Plaintiffs’ recovery is the same, whether

Montgomery is a named defendant in his official capacity or whether he is dismissed,

because the County remains a defendant. The fact that the County has to date denied the

allegations against it does not make Montgomery a necessary party to this litigation. Rather,

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 70 Filed 05/26/11 Page 4 of 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 - 5 -

because he is a redundant defendant, the Court will grant Montgomery’s motion to dismiss.

See Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. L.A. County Sheriff Dep’t, 533 F.3d 790, 799 (9th

Cir. 2008) (noting that when “both a municipal officer and a local government entity are

named, and the officer is named only in an official capacity, the court may dismiss the officer

as a redundant defendant”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant William Montgomery’s Rule 12(b)(6)

Motion to Dismiss, pending in CV11-0116 (Doc. 18), is granted.

DATED this 25th day of May, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 70 Filed 05/26/11 Page 5 of 5