Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02242/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02242-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Justin Slone Medved, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Patrick Medved, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-2242-PHX-DKD

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Complaint, Application to Proceed Without 

Prepaying Fees or Costs and Motion to Allow Electronic Filing. This matter is addressed 

by this Report and Recommendation to the Presiding Judge of the Phoenix Division 

because although this case was randomly assigned to the undersigned judge pursuant to 

the Local Rules of this Court, the undersigned, as a Magistrate Judge, does not have the 

judicial authority to enter a dispositive order absent the consent of the parties. 

 The Court has reviewed the Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 

notes that the substance of this Complaint has already been addressed by two other judges 

of this Court. District Judge Tuchi dismissed with prejudice a complaint which is nearly 

identical to the Complaint in this case. See CV-14-2005-PHX-JJT. District Judge Snow 

then dismissed a nearly identical Complaint on the same grounds. See CV-14-2076-

PHX-GMS. 

Case 2:14-cv-02242-DKD Document 6 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

 The Court has reviewed the Complaint in the above captioned-case and identified 

the following merely semantic differences from the previously dismissed complaints. 

Nearly all references to Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code which 

appeared in the earlier Complaints have been removed from the text and headings of the 

Complaint presently before this Court. (For examples, compare page 10, line 21 of the 

new Complaint to page 10, line 15 of the dismissed Complaint in CV-14-2005 and 

further compare page 101, line 15 of the new Complaint to page 100, line 25 of the 

dismissed Complaint.) This is significant because Judge Tuchi’s Order dismissing the 

nearly identical Complaint specified that the Complaint did not assert a federal cause of 

action because the claims failed to satisfy the § 1983 requirement that the defendant acted 

under color of state law. Given that there was no such allegation that defendant had acted 

under color of state law as required by § 1983 and it appearing unlikely that any such 

allegation could be made, the Complaint was dismissed on those grounds. Now Plaintiff 

asserts the identical claims, word-for-word, to those claims previously dismissed but with 

the phrase “42 U.S.C. § 1983” removed from the headings and text. With or without the 

statutory citation, the claims are the same and thus Judge Tuchi’s Order dismissing these 

claims in case number CV-14-2005 requires their dismissal here. 

 The Court notes that the new Complaint states “[t]his complaint is related to a 

complaint that was filed against Stachowski Farm, Inc.; James Stachowski; and Peter 

Stachowski . . . . [and] [t]his complaint is also in relation to a complaint brought against 

Judge Tuchi and Judge [S]now. . . . Which is a completely different complaint than the 

complaint dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend by Judge Tuchi.” 

Complaint at p. 98. A review of the Complaint in case CV-14-2005 and the Complaint in 

this case refutes the statement that it is a “completely different complaint.” They are 

nearly identical. 1

 

1

 The Complaint in CV-14-2005 also included the following paragraph not included in the new Complaint: “This complaint is in response to a complaint that was filed in the Superior Court of Maricopa County on the 13th of October of 2013 that was 

dismissed because the defendant had filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy.” ¶ 228 p. 92. The Court includes this footnote for completeness, but the omission or inclusion of this 

Case 2:14-cv-02242-DKD Document 6 Filed 10/24/14 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

 The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s new Complaint may assert three additional 

claims not presented in the previous case. The Court says “may” here because it is 

unclear from Plaintiff’s Complaint whether these claims are alleged because they are not 

separately enumerated among the specified Claims for Relief at Paragraphs VII through 

XXV. However, the first page of the new Complaint lists “Bribery in Sporting Contests 

18 U.S.C[.] § 224; Hate Crimes Acts 18 U.S.C[.] § 249 . . .; Force, Violence, and Threats 

Involving Animal Enterprises 18 U.S.C[.] § 43.” However these are criminal statutes 

which authorize the United States Attorney to prosecute criminal cases in federal court. 

These statutes do not authorize a private citizen to bring such claims in a federal civil 

case. If Plaintiff believes the criminal statutes of the United States have been violated, he 

should contact an appropriate federal law enforcement authority such as the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation or local law enforcement authorities which may have jurisdiction 

to investigate allegations of criminal contact. 

 The Court wishes Plaintiff to understand that his case must be dismissed because 

under our federalist model of government, most responsibilities of government are 

reserved to the states. Consistent with this constitutional framework, our federal courts 

are courts of limited jurisdiction which means they are authorized to hear cases only in 

matters that arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States as delineated by 

Congress’ grant of jurisdiction under Article III of the United States Constitution. As 

Judge Tuchi pointed out in his Order, Plaintiff’s claims and the disputes he describes are 

not among those matters which are permitted to be heard in federal court. Any such 

claims may only be entertained in a court of general jurisdiction such as a state trial court. 

 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed with 

prejudice. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

 paragraph in the subject Complaint is irrelevant to the Court’s jurisdictional analysis. 

Case 2:14-cv-02242-DKD Document 6 Filed 10/24/14 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 24th day of October, 2014. 

cc: SRB 

Case 2:14-cv-02242-DKD Document 6 Filed 10/24/14 Page 4 of 4