Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-03014/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-03014-0/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WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karen S. Merhoff, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

John B. Bentz, and Property Advisory

Group, Inc., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-04-3014-PHX-SRB

OPINION AND ORDER

This action involves the allegedly unconstitutional prohibition of all religious activity

in the public areas of an apartment building managed by Defendants John B. Bentz and

Property Advisory Group, Inc. At issue is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed pursuant to

Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6) (Doc. 10). 

I. BACKGROUND

The following are the relevant facts contained in Plaintiff Karen S. Merhoff's

Amended Complaint: Plaintiff resides at the Westward Ho in Phoenix, Arizona, an

apartment building managed by Defendants. Until December 21, 2004, Defendants did not

object to Plaintiff's use of the Westward Ho's "public rooms" for "religious activities such as

prayer, bible study and religious services." (Am. Compl. ¶ 3.) On that date, Defendants

circulated a memo prohibiting all religious activities in the public rooms. 

Case 2:04-cv-03014-SRB Document 19 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

On December 28, 2004, Plaintiff, representing herself, filed a complaint in the United

States District Court, which she amended on May 6, 2005. Her Amended Complaint alleges

that Defendants' prohibition of religious activity in the public rooms violates her rights to

freedom of speech and religion. On June 28, 2005, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff's only response to that motion came in the form of a "Request to Proceed," in which

Plaintiff explains that while she cannot afford legal counsel, she "believe[s] that [she] ha[s]

a case and would like the privilege to be heard by [the Court]." (Pl.'s Request to Proceed at

1.)

II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

Defendants seek dismissal of the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim on which

relief can be granted. A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim can be based on

either: (1) the lack of a cognizable legal theory, or (2) insufficient facts to support a

cognizable legal claim. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1990); Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984). 

In determining whether a complaint states a valid claim, all allegations of material fact

are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Clegg

v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754 (9th Cir. 1994). The complaint should not be

dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that there are “no set of facts” that would entitle

the plaintiff to relief under the asserted claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78

S.Ct. 99, 103 (1957); see also Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 701.

The Amended Complaint, at this point, fails to state a claim. Plaintiff has sued a

private individual and a private entity for allegedly infringing upon her constitutional rights

to freedom of speech and religion. However, the constitutional amendments upon which

Case 2:04-cv-03014-SRB Document 19 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 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

1

The Court uses the word "apparently" because the Amended Complaint does not

specify the constitutional basis (or bases) for Plaintiff's claim. If Plaintiff wishes to argue

that Defendants acted as agents of the federal government in restricting her constitutional

rights, then her complaint would appear to allege a First Amendment violation; if Plaintiff

believes that Defendants were agents of the State of Arizona, her complaint would appear

to allege a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. 

- 3 -

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint apparently1

 relies restrict the government's ability to make

laws affecting an individual's rights to freedom of speech and religion. There is no such

restriction on the behavior of private individuals or private entities. It is possible, however,

in certain circumstances to attribute the actions of private individuals and private entities to

the government. See, e.g., Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288, 121

S. Ct. 924 (2001); Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 102 S. Ct. 2764 (1982); Lugar v.

Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 102 S. Ct. 2744 (1982); Lee v. Katz, 276 F.3d 550 (9th

Cir. 2002); Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 1999); Morse

v. North Coast Opportunities, Inc., 118 F.3d 1338 (9th Cir. 1997). For a complaint to survive

a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint must contain factual allegations that

support the conclusion that such an attribution is legally appropriate. Id. at 1338.

Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice

because, given the nature of the relationship between Westward Ho and the federal

government, it would be impossible for Plaintiff to make legally sufficient allegations that

the actions of the Westward Ho are fairly attributable to the federal government. In

particular, Defendants argue that while the Westward Ho receives subsidies from the federal

government, and that in exchange for those subsidies, the Westward Ho is subject to certain

federal regulations, subsidy and regulation, without more, are not sufficient to transform the

actions of private entities into those of the state. While Defendants appear to be correct on

that point, it would be premature, given the paucity of allegations in the Amended Complaint,

to draw definitive conclusions about the nature of Westward Ho's relationship with the

federal government.

Case 2:04-cv-03014-SRB Document 19 Filed 10/25/05 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend.

If Plaintiff wishes to avoid dismissal of her case, she must amend her complaint to address

the issue of whether the actions of Defendants which gave rise to the Amended Complaint

are fairly attributable to the government.

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend.

(Doc. 10).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file her amended complaint not

later than 20 days from the date of this order. If no amended complaint is filed within 20

days, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing Plaintiff's case.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-03014-SRB Document 19 Filed 10/25/05 Page 4 of 4