Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02254/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02254-0/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

JOHN D. (a fictitious name), 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ROGER VANDERPOOL, Director of

Arizona Department of Public Safety;

CITY OF PHOENIX, a Municipality;

JOHN LINDENMEIER, Detective, City of

Phoenix Police Department, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05-2254-PHX-JAT

 ORDER

Pending before this Court is Defendant Vanderpool’s Motion for Judgment on

Pleadings to dismiss Defendant Vanderpool pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Rule 12(c). Plaintiff failed to file a response to this motion. The court considered

Defendant Vanderpool’s motion and pleading and now rules as follows.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(c), “is properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the pleadings as

true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Nelson v. City of

Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 1998). In other words, dismissal pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is inappropriate in circumstances in which, if the facts were

Case 2:05-cv-02254-JAT Document 45 Filed 01/23/06 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 -

as pleaded, they would entitle the plaintiff to a remedy. Merchants Home Delivery Serv.,

Inc. v. Hall & Co., 50 F.3d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1995).

In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court cannot consider

evidence outside the pleadings unless the Court treats the motion as one pursuant to Rule

56. FED. R. CIV. PRO. 12(c). If the Court treats the motion as having been brought under

Rule 56, the Court must give all parties the opportunity to present all material pertinent to

such motion. Id. However, the Court may consider facts that are contained in materials

of which the court may take judicial notice. See Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th

Cir. 1994).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff John D. (a fictitious name) is a married man residing in the State of

Arizona. Following Plaintiff’s conviction for Attempted Sexual Exploitation of a Minor,

he was classified as a level II sex offender under Arizona’s Registration of Sex Offenders

statute, A.R.S. Section 13-3821 et seq, requiring community notification of his presence. 

In the present action, Plaintiff alleges that his classification as a level II sex offender is

erroneous, and violates his substantive and procedural due process rights, as well as his

right to equal protection of the laws under the United States Constitution. Pl.’s 1st Am.

Compl. ¶¶ 33-38. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against City of

Phoenix Police Detective John Lindenmeier, the City of Phoenix, and Arizona

Department of Public Safety Director Roger Vandenpool. Id.

Plaintiff’s sex offender assessment was conducted by Defendant Lindenmeier, who

classified Plaintiff as a level II sex offender. The City of Phoenix Police Department is

the local law enforcement agency responsible for the supervision of Plaintiff. See A.R.S.

§ 13-3825. Pursuant to statute, the City of Phoenix Police Department notified the

Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) of Plaintiff’s status determination. DPS then

entered Plaintiff’s information into the sex offender profile and notification database. See

id. DPS’s only role in sex offender community notification is collecting data from local

law enforcement agencies, entering that data into the sex offender profile and notification

Case 2:05-cv-02254-JAT Document 45 Filed 01/23/06 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

- 3 -

database, and posting that information on the Arizona sex offender website. DPS played

no role in the determination of Plaintiff’s sex offender level. 

According to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, the DPS sex offender website

contained an error, mistakenly identifying Plaintiff’s conviction as for sexual exploitation

of a minor instead of the actual charge of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor. Since

the present action was filed under a fictitious name, DPS was unable to verify the

existence of the alleged error. When Defendant Vanderpool’s counsel learned Plaintiff’s

name at the August 9, 2005 evidentiary hearing, the error on the sex offender website was

corrected. Def. Vanderpool’s Mot. J. Pleadings at 5. Because Plaintiff failed to respond

to the Motion, the Court accepts as true that this error has now been corrected.

DISCUSSION

Given Arizona’s statutory scheme for classifying sex offenders, it is evident that

Defendant Vanderpool played no role in the alleged erroneous classification of Plaintiff

as a level II sex offender. See A.R.S. § 13-3825. The only allegation in Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint which pertains to Defendant Vanderpool is contained in paragraph

32: “[The DPS Website] erroneously labeled [Plaintiff] as having been convicted of

sexual exploitation of a minor, as opposed to attempted sexual exploitation of a minor.” 

The error on the website was corrected within 48 hours of the discovery of Plaintiff’s

identity. 

It is evident that the only allegation against Defendant Vanderpool has been

addressed and corrected by said Defendant. Any action for injunctive or declarative relief

on this issue is therefore moot. Since Plaintiff’s only claims against Defendant

Vanderpool are for injunctive and declaratory relief, and accepting all of the allegations in

the pleadings as true, Defendant Vanderpool is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-02254-JAT Document 45 Filed 01/23/06 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 -

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Vanderpool’s Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment

on the Pleadings to Dismiss Defendant Vanderpool (Doc. # 36) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, there being no just reason for delay, the Clerk

of the Court shall dismiss Defendant Vanderpool (only) from this action.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Vanderpool’s Motion for Summary

Disposition of his Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 39) is DENIED AS

MOOT.

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02254-JAT Document 45 Filed 01/23/06 Page 4 of 4