Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00066/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00066-0/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Richard Arno Lee, deceased, represented

by Wanda Lee, wife and Personal

Representative, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-00066-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On January 12, 2010, Wanda Lee initiated the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 on behalf of the Estate of her deceased husband, Richard Arno Lee. (Dkt. # 1.) After

Defendants Brian Mackiewicz, Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, and Maricopa County (collectively

“Defendants”) moved to dismiss the Estate’s claims (Dkt. ## 13, 15), the Estate filed an

Amended Complaint as a matter of course (Dkt. # 18). Defendants then renewed their Motion

to Dismiss, arguing, among other things, that Ms. Lee lacks standing to pursue these claims

because she has not been appointed as the Estate’s personal representative. (See Dkt. # 25.)

As set forth below, the Court orders Ms. Lee to provide documentation showing that she has

the authority to represent the Estate in this matter. 

DISCUSSION

Ms. Lee has not adequately demonstrated that she has standing to bring claims on

behalf of the Estate. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93 (1998)

(observing that standing challenges should be resolved prior to reaching the merits of a case).

Case 2:10-cv-00066-GMS Document 33 Filed 05/12/10 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

1

This distinction is important because while a surviving spouse may bring a wrongful

death claim, a personal representative is required to bring a survival claim under Arizona

law. Compare Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-612 with § 14-3110.

- 2 -

It appears that Ms. Lee lacks standing because she is pursuing a survival action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, but has not been named as a personal representative of her husband’s estate.

I. The Estate’s Claims are Survival Actions. 

Under § 1983, a claim that accrues before an individual’s death is only cognizable if

state law would allow the claim to go forward as a survival action. Tatum v. City & County

of S.F., 441 F.3d 1090, 1093 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2006). Under Arizona law, a survival action is a

personal injury action that survives to permit a decedent’s estate to recover damages that

would have been personally awarded to the decedent had he survived. See Ariz. Rev. Stat.

§ 14-3110. A wrongful death action, on the other hand, is an independent claim for damages

personally suffered by a decedent’s heirs as a result of the decedent’s death.1 See id. at § 12-

612. As the Arizona Court of Appeals has explained, 

A wrongful death action is an original and distinct claim for

damages sustained by the statutory beneficiaries and is not

derivative of or a continuation of a claim existing in the

decedent. A survival statute, on the other hand, does not create

a new claim but merely prevents abatement of the injured

person’s claim and provides for its enforcement by his personal

representative . . . .

[A] claim under the survival statute and a claim under the

wrongful death statute are separate and distinct notwithstanding

they originate from the same wrongful act. The former permits

recovery for the wrong to the injured person and is confined to

his personal loss while the latter is for the wrong to the

beneficiaries, confined to their loss because of the death. The

latter begins where the former ends . . . . 

Gartin v. St. Joseph’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 156 Ariz. 32, 35, 749 P.2d 943, 944 (Ct. App.

1998); see also Miles v. Melrose, 882 F.2d 976, 895 (5th Cir. 1989) (explaining the

difference between a survival action and an action for wrongful death).

All of the Estate’s federal claims are survival actions. The Amended Complaint raises

five claims under § 1983: (1) Mr. Lee was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment under

the Eighth Amendment when Defendants interrogated and incarcerated him without

Case 2:10-cv-00066-GMS Document 33 Filed 05/12/10 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 2

Counts Four, Five, and Six are alleged pursuant to Arizona law. (See Dkt. # 18.)

- 3 -

providing him necessary medical treatment (Count One); (2) Defendants violated Mr. Lee’s

Fifth Amendment protections against self incrimination when they interrogated him without

reading his Miranda rights (Counts Two and Eight); (3) Defendants’ failure to provide

necessary medication during Mr. Lee’s custody and interrogation violated right to life and

liberty under the his Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause (Count Three); (4) Mr.

Lee was denied his confrontation rights in violation of the Sixth Amendment when he was

precluded from cross-examining a witness that testified against him (Count Seven); and (5)

Defendants deprived Mr. Lee of his due process rights when they allowed witnesses to testify

against him in a hearing but did not afford Mr. Lee the same right (Count Nine).2

 (Dkt. # 18

at 19–26.) A review of the Amended Complaint provides that each of these claims is asserted

on behalf of Mr. Lee for harm that he allegedly suffered while he was alive. None of the

claims are asserted for the harm or damages allegedly suffered by Mr. Lee’s heirs. See

Gartin, 156 Ariz. at 35, 749 P.2d at 944. In addition, it appears that all of the alleged

misconduct giving rise to these claims occurred approximately one year prior to Mr. Lee’s

death. Claims that accrue prior to the decedent’s death are generally treated as survival

actions. See Tatum, 441 F.3d at 1093 n. 2.

II. Ms. Lee Does Not Have Standing to Pursue Survival Claims Under § 1983.

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “the survivors of an individual” may assert constitutional

claims “on that individual’s behalf if the relevant state’s law authorizes a survival action.”

Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365, 369 (9th Cir.1998) (citing 42

U.S.C. § 1988)); Tatum, 441 F.3d at 1093 n. 2 (noting that a § 1983 claim that accrues

“before the decedent’s death” does not abate if “state law authorizes a survival action”). The

plaintiff, however, “bears the burden of demonstrating that a particular state’s law authorizes

a survival action” and showing that he or she “meets that state’s requirements for bringing

a survival action.” Moreland, 159 F.3d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Under Arizona’s survival statute, familial ties, without more, are insufficient to confer

Case 2:10-cv-00066-GMS Document 33 Filed 05/12/10 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 -

standing to act on behalf of a decedent’s estate. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3110. This Section

further provides that a “cause of action . . . shall survive the death of the person entitled

thereto or liable therefor, and may be asserted by or against the personal representative of

such person.” In Lacer v. Navajo County, the Arizona Court of Appeals interpreted this

provision to mean that “only the personal representative” has standing “to bring” a survival

action. 141 Ariz. 396, 404, 687 P.2d 404, 412 (Ct. App. 1983). Arizona Revised Statute § 14-

3104 further provides that “to acquire the powers and undertake the duties and liabilities of

a personal representative of a decedent, a person shall be appointed by order of the court or

statement of the registrar[.]”

In this case, there is nothing indicating that the Estate’s claims are prohibited by

Arizona’s survival statute. Yet, while these causes of action may not be prohibited under

Arizona’s survival statute, it appears that Ms. Lee has not met her burden of showing that she

“meets [Arizona’s] requirements for bringing” these claims. See Moreland, 159 F.3d at 369.

Ms. Lee alleges in her Amended Complaint that she is the personal representative of her

husband’s estate. Defendants, however, bring forth evidence that Ms. Lee has not been

properly appointed pursuant to § 14-3104. See In re Matter of Richard Arno Lee, No. 09-PB070022 ( Sup. Ct. May 5, 2009). According to the docket in Mr. Lee’s probate case, of which

the Court takes notice, it appears that no personal representative has been appointed to

represent the Estate. (See id.) Ms. Lee does not dispute this; instead she argues that she has

standing because she is Mr. Lee’s surviving spouse. Under Arizona law, however, this is not

sufficient to bring a survival claim; a personal representative must be appointed. Ariz. Rev.

Stat. § 14-3104. 

Nevertheless, because it not entirely clear from the record that Ms. Lee is without

authority to represent her husband’s estate, the Court will afford Ms. Lee thirty days to file

documentation evincing that she has been appointed as the Estate’s personal representative.

If Ms. Lee does not provide the necessary evidence in this time frame, the Estate’s federal

claims will be dismissed, which will also result in dismissal of the any remaining state-law

claims. See Les Shockley Racing Inc. v. Nat’l Hot Rod Ass’n, 844 F.2d 504, 509 (9th Cir.

Case 2:10-cv-00066-GMS Document 33 Filed 05/12/10 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 -

1989) (holding that when federal court “dismisses [federal claims] leaving only state claims

for resolution, the court should decline jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them

without prejudice”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Estate’s

Original Compliant (Dkt. ## 13, 15) are DENIED as moot in light of the Amended

Complaint. The Court will STAY its ruling on Defendants’ remaining Motion to Dismiss

(Dkt. # 25) to afford Ms. Lee the opportunity to demonstrate that she is the personal

representative of her husband’s Estate. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Lee shall provide documentary evidence

establishing that she has been appointed as the personal representative of the Estate of

Richard Arno Lee. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Lee is to file a MEMORANDUM with the

relevant evidence on or before June 12, 2010. Failure to comply will result in dismissal of

this action.

DATED this 12th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00066-GMS Document 33 Filed 05/12/10 Page 5 of 5