Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00444/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00444-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

Arthur Charles Gallegos, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Ronald Reinstein, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-0444-PHX-FJM

ORDER

On March 26, 1988, plaintiff, while intoxicated, drove at a high rate of speed down

the wrong way of a street in Phoenix, collided with another car, and killed 3 people. On

April 21, 1989, plaintiff entered a no contest plea to three counts of vehicular manslaughter

in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County and was sentenced to serve concurrent

10-year prison terms on the first two counts and a 5-year consecutive term on the third count.

After serving his sentence, plaintiff began filing state and federal lawsuits raising various

challenges to his plea agreement and conviction. See, e.g., Gallegos v. Reinstein, No. CACV-11-0135 (Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2011) (denying plaintiff’s second “motion for relief from

order denying withdraw plea of guilt no contest” [sic]); Gallegos v. State of Arizona, No.

CV-08-1877 (D. Ariz. Oct. 14, 2008). The case now before us is the latest in that line of

cases.

We have before us plaintiff’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea (doc. 4), motion for

Case 2:12-cv-00444-FJM Document 20 Filed 06/28/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

order of civil trial (doc. 5) and motion to amend his complaint (doc. 15), state defendants’

response (doc. 16), and plaintiff’s reply (doc. 19). We also have defendant Connell’s motion

to dismiss (doc. 6), plaintiff’s response (doc. 12), and Connell’s reply (doc. 13); and state

defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 14), plaintiff’s response (doc. 17), and state defendants’

reply (doc. 18).

Plaintiff again asks to withdraw his 1989 no contest plea, complaining, among other

things, that it was involuntary and coerced. He again names as defendants a Superior Court

judge, two Superior Court commissioners, two probation officers, and a Maricopa County

sheriff. It is difficult to determine from reading plaintiff’s largely unintelligible complaint

and briefs exactly what he is alleging. The nature of the allegations changes from one

document to the next. It is clear, however, that plaintiff is once again challenging various

state court rulings. He acknowledges that he “has made several requests to withdraw Plea

in lower court but has been denied.” Motion to Withdraw Plea at 2. 

We are without authority to review final state court decisions. Under the RookerFeldman doctrine, absent express statutory authority, only the United States Supreme Court

has jurisdiction to review final decisions of state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257; District of

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983); Rooker v.

Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154

(9th Cir. 2003). In addition, to the extent that plaintiff asks us to collaterally consider

arguments previously dismissed in Gallegos v. State of Arizona, No. CV-08-1877 (D. Ariz.

Oct. 14, 2008), his claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Plaintiff also seeks to amend his complaint, purportedly to correct the spelling of the

defendants names and to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. He attaches a proposed amended

complaint to his motion that fails to comply with LRCiv 15.1 because it does not indicate in

what respect it differs from the original complaint. In addition to failing to comply with the

local rules, however, plaintiff’s proposed amendments continue to assert various challenges

to final state court judgments, the review of which is not available in this court. Thus, the

proposed amendment would be futile and the motion to amend is denied.

Case 2:12-cv-00444-FJM Document 20 Filed 06/28/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (doc. 4),

DENYING plaintiff’s motion for a civil trial (doc. 5), and DENYING plaintiff’s motion to

amend his complaint (doc. 15).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendant Connell’s motion to dismiss

(doc. 6), and GRANTING the state defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 14). The clerk shall

enter final judgment.

We urge plaintiff to seek the advice of a lawyer before wasting his time and the

court’s resources on any further flawed filings. If he does not have a lawyer, he may wish

to contact the Lawyer Referral Service of the Maricopa County Bar Association at 602-257-

4434. 

DATED this 27th day of June, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00444-FJM Document 20 Filed 06/28/12 Page 3 of 3