Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02443/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02443-0/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

Jeff Nelson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Judge Gerald A. Williams, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2443-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us defendants Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Fulton Brock,

Andrew Kunasek, Don Stapley, Mary Rose Wilcox, and Max Wilson’s motion to dismiss

(doc. 17) and defendants Terry Goddard and the State of Arizona’s motion to dismiss (doc.

19). Plaintiff did not respond to these motions, and the time for doing so has expired.

Plaintiff asserts several claims arising out of the reassignment of his criminal case from the

Wickenburg Municipal Court to the Maricopa County Justice Court in North Valley. 

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the members of the Board move to

dismiss on the following grounds: (1) the Board is a non-jural entity that cannot be sued; (2)

defendants cannot be held vicariously liable for a County employee’s actions; (3) defendant

Justice of the Peace Williams is immune from suit; and (4) reassignment of plaintiff’s

criminal case was appropriate. The State of Arizona and Terry Goddard move to dismiss

because (1) the State is immune; and (2) plaintiff failed to file a written statement of his

Case 2:10-cv-02443-FJM Document 20 Filed 03/01/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

claim within 180 days, in accordance with A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). 

Plaintiff’s response to defendants’ motions to dismiss was due on January 21, 2011.

Over a month later, no response has been filed. If an unrepresented party “does not serve and

file the required answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent

to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.”

LRCiv 7.2(i). Failure to respond is deemed consent to the granting of the motion.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ motions to dismiss with

prejudice (docs. 17 & 19). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING defendants

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Fulton Brock, Andrew Kunasek, Don Stapley, Mary

Rose Wilcox, Max Wilson, State of Arizona, and Terry Goddard.

DATED this 28th day of February, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02443-FJM Document 20 Filed 03/01/11 Page 2 of 2