Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02536/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02536-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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 

Darcia C. Bender, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Gila County Sheriff’s Office, a 

Governmental entity, 

Defendant. 

No. 12-CV-02536-PHX-JAT 

ORDER

 Pending before the Court is Defendant, Gila County Sheriff’s Office’s, Motion to 

Dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff has filed a response to Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss and informed that Court that she would be filing a Motion to Amend 

her Complaint. (Doc. 8). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend her First 

Amended Complaint. (Doc. 9). Defendant has filed a response opposing Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Amend. (Doc. 10). The Court will deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and 

grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend for the following reasons. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On October 29, 2012, acting as a pro se litigant, Plaintiff filed a complaint against 

Defendant in the state Superior Court in Gila County. (Doc. 1-1). Plaintiff alleged two 

claims under Title VII against Defendant. (Id. at 5-6). On November 5, 2012, Plaintiff 

filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant alleging the same two claims 

under Title VII. (Doc. 1-2). On November 29, 2012, Defendant removed this action to 

federal court. (Doc. 1). 

Case 2:12-cv-02536-JAT Document 12 Filed 08/27/13 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 -

 On December 3, 2012, Defendant filed the pending Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 4). 

In the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss the FAC 

because the Gila County Sheriff’s Office is a non-jural entity and, as such, is without the 

capacity to sue or be sued. (Id. at 1). 

 On February 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed notice with the Court that she had retained 

counsel in this matter. (Doc. 7). On March 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a response and 

informed the Court she would be filing a Motion to Amend her FAC. (Doc. 8). On 

March 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion to Amend the FAC (Doc. 9) and 

attached a proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (Doc. 9-1). In the SAC, 

Plaintiff appears to concede that Gila County Sheriff’s Office is a non-jural entity; she 

retains her two claims under Title VII and seeks to add Gila County, former Gila County 

Sheriff John Armer, and current Gila County Sheriff J. Adam Shepherd as Defendants. 

(Doc. 9-1). 

II. ANALYSIS 

 After a party has amended a pleading once as a matter of course, it may only 

amend further after obtaining leave of the court, or by consent of the adverse party. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 15(a). Generally, Rule 15 advises the court that “leave shall be freely given 

when justice so requires.” This policy is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Owens 

v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)(quoting Morongo 

Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)). The Court has 

“an obligation where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe 

the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Akhtar v. 

Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 

n. 1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)). “A district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint 

without leave to amend unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint 

could not be cured by amendment.’” Id. (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 

1203–04 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)). A district court’s denial of leave to amend is 

subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. See Telesaursus VPC, LLC v. Power, 

Case 2:12-cv-02536-JAT Document 12 Filed 08/27/13 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 -

623 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 2010). 

 Under Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent prior to the 2010 amendments to 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court would sua sponte grant leave to amend 

when granting a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), unless a pleading could not be 

cured by the allegation of other facts. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 

(9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (citing Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

However, this precedent has been called into question in light of the 2010 changes to the 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which now allows parties twenty-one days from 

responsive pleadings and motions to dismiss to amend once as a matter of course. See id. 

 The United States Supreme Court has established that motions to amend should be 

granted unless the district court determines that there has been a showing of: (1) undue 

delay; (2) bad faith or dilatory motives on the part of the movant; (3) repeated failure to 

cure deficiencies by previous amendments; (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party; or 

(5) futility of the proposed amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see 

W. Shoshone Nat’l Council v. Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir. 1991). “Generally, this 

determination should be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion.” 

Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing DCD 

Programs, LTD. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987)). Significantly, “[t]he 

party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice,” futility, or one of the 

other permissible reasons for denying a motion to amend. DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 

187; see Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating that leave 

to amend should be freely given unless opposing party makes “an affirmative showing of 

either prejudice or bad faith”). 

 In this case, Plaintiff’s counsel opposes Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(3).” (Doc. 8 at 1). As an initial matter, the Court 

notes that Rule 15(c)(3) does not exist. The Court assumes Plaintiff intended to make her 

argument under Rule 15(c)(1) as she argues her proposed amendment relates back to the 

date she made her original claims. (Id. at 1-2). Plaintiff argues this rule permits her to 

Case 2:12-cv-02536-JAT Document 12 Filed 08/27/13 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 -

add Gila County as a defendant under these circumstances. In her proposed SAC, Plaintiff 

seeks to add Gila County, former Gila County Sheriff John Armer, and current Gila 

County Sheriff J. Adam Shepherd as Defendants and dismiss the conceded non-jural 

entity Gila County Sheriff’s Office. (Doc. 9-1). 

 In opposing Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, Defendant argues that granting Plaintiff 

leave to amend would be futile because the Ninth Circuit has long held that Title VII does 

not provide a separate cause of action against supervisors or co-workers. (Doc. 10 at 2) 

(citing Craig v. M & O Agencies, Inc., 496 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007)). Defendant 

goes on to ask the Court to deny the Motion to Amend and treat it as a motion to substitute 

a jural entity for a non-jural entity, namely, Gila County in place of the Gila County 

Sheriff’s Office. (Id.). 

 Indeed, “[i]ndividual defendants are not proper defendants under a Title VII 

claim.” Cohen v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 11-CV-1619-MLH-RJJ, 2012 WL 2326721, at 

*7 (D. Nev. June 19, 2012) (citing Holly D. v. Cal. Inst. of Tech., 339 F.3d 1158, 1179 

(9th Cir. 2003) (“We have consistently held that Title VII does not provide a cause of 

action for damages against supervisors or fellow employees.”); see also Miller v. 

Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[I]ndividual defendants 

cannot be held liable for damages under Title VII.”). Accordingly, the Court finds 

Defendant has shown that it would be futile to allow Plaintiff to amend her complaint and 

add former Gila County Sheriff John Armer, and current Gila County Sheriff J. Adam 

Shepherd as Defendants. 

 However, no showing has been made that allowing Plaintiff to amend would cause 

undue delay, that Plaintiff is acting in bad faith, or that Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to 

cure deficiencies by previous amendments. The Court also notes that no undue prejudice 

would be placed on Defendant by allowing Plaintiff to amend because the first two 

complaints were filed pro se and the FAC was filed before any meaningful defense was 

raised to the original complaint; counsel was also retained by Plaintiff after Plaintiff filed 

the FAC which forfeited Plaintiff’s counsel’s opportunity to file an amended complaint as 

Case 2:12-cv-02536-JAT Document 12 Filed 08/27/13 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 -

a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Further, the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals has directed the Court to grant pro se litigants leave to amend with 

extreme liberality, especially in civil rights claims. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 

1135 (9th Cir. 1987). Finally, Defendant has made no argument that adding only Gila 

County as a Defendant would be futile or one of the other permissible reasons for denying 

a motion to amend. Consequently, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and 

upon filing her SAC, Plaintiff shall only add Gila County as a Defendant in this matter. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is denied as moot 

without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and File a 

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) is granted. Plaintiff shall file the proposed Second 

Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order within ten (10) days of the filing of 

this order; if Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint within this deadline, then 

Defendant may re-file the Motion to Dismiss that the Court has denied without prejudice 

within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order. 

 Dated this 27th day of August, 2013. 

 

 

Case 2:12-cv-02536-JAT Document 12 Filed 08/27/13 Page 5 of 5