Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01158/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01158-0/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 

Tanya Busse, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Mesa, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01158-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant City of Mesa has filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 37. Defendants Rick 

Romero, Superior Process Service, Inc. and Kevin Jensen have joined the motion. 

Docs. 38, 39. Plaintiff has not responded despite prompts by the court to do so, but has 

filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 41. The Court will grant Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss. 

I. Background. 

 Plaintiff seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an allegedly improper arrest 

and detention. Doc. 1. Plaintiff was arrested at her place of work on April 19, 2013 for 

violating an order of protection. The order prohibited her from any contact with her 

husband, but Plaintiff had texted her husband up to six times in March and April 2013. 

Doc. 37-2 at 3. Upon arrest, Plaintiff claimed that she had never been served with the 

order of protection. Doc. 1 at 3-4. Plaintiff was held overnight, during which time she 

claims to have had small seizures, to have been hit in the head by another woman, and to 

have suffered extreme cold temperatures, which caused her extreme pain. Id. at 4. 

Case 2:13-cv-01158-DGC Document 42 Filed 03/31/14 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 

 In June of 2013, Plaintiff was charged with four counts of interfering with judicial 

proceedings – domestic violence, for violating the order of protection. Doc. 37-3. On 

January 13, 2014, Plaintiff was convicted in Mesa Municipal Court on three of the four 

counts. Doc. 37-4. 

II. Analysis. 

 Under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), “in order to recover damages for 

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by 

actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 

plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, 

expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such 

determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas 

corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Id. at 486-87. “A claim for damages bearing that relationship 

to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under 

§ 1983.” Id. 

 Plaintiff claims that her arrest was invalid and unconstitutional because (1) she 

“was arrested without committing a crime and without a warrant,” (2) the arresting 

officers “did not follow proper procedure to secure plaintiffs rights and they knew or 

should have known that the arrest was not lawful,” (3) she was embarrassed in front of 

coworkers; (4) her husband and an individual named Chelsea Holgate alleged false, 

defamatory information that led to her arrest; and (5) the City of Mesa failed to properly 

train its employees. Doc. 1 at 5. 

 The Court “must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would 

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint 

must be dismissed.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Most of Plaintiff’s allegations concern the 

charges brought by the City of Mesa and her arrest on those charges. Because these 

allegations imply the invalidity of the charges and her conviction, they must be dismissed 

under Heck. Plaintiff has not shown that her conviction on the charges has been reversed, 

overturned, or otherwise called into question by court action. 

Case 2:13-cv-01158-DGC Document 42 Filed 03/31/14 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 

 Further, a § 1983 claim cannot be used to assert claims against her husband and 

Chelsea Holgate for making false and defamatory statements. These individuals were not 

acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (defendant must 

be acting under color of state authority to be subject to a § 1983 claim). 

 Finally, Plaintiff’s claim that the City of Mesa failed to train its employees 

properly may or may not be subject to a Heck defense. To the extent Plaintiff suggests 

that her arrest and conviction were the result of inadequate training, the claims clearly are 

barred by Heck. To the extent Plaintiff bases her claim of inadequate training on other 

facts, she has failed to identify those facts or clearly describe the claim she is asserting. 

 As noted above, Plaintiff did not respond to the motions to dismiss despite the 

Court’s direct warning that a failure to respond would result in the motions being granted. 

Doc. 40. Plaintiff did file a motion for summary judgment, but it does not provide 

reasons for denying the motions to dismiss. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 

argues that the City of Mesa violated her constitutional rights in connection with her 

conviction, including denying her right to indictment and a jury trial. Plaintiff also 

describes new constitutional violations resulting from the conviction, and argues various 

facts relating to actions by her husband and the circumstances of her arrest. The Court 

cannot find in the motion any basis for concluding that Plaintiff has stated a valid claim. 

Because this case has been pending for more than nine months, with Plaintiff having 

failed to respond to eight motions by Defendants, the Court concludes that the motions to 

dismiss should be granted and this case should be terminated. Although Plaintiff 

mentions in her motion for summary judgment that she will seek leave to amend, the new 

claims she describes (to the extent they can be understood by the Court) would also be 

barred by Heck. Plaintiff has had two opportunities to plead her claims, and the Court 

concludes that further amendments will only unnecessarily prolong this litigation. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01158-DGC Document 42 Filed 03/31/14 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 

IT IS ORDERED that the motions to dismiss (Docs. 37, 38, 39) are granted. 

Defendants’ earlier motions (Docs. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9) and Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment (Doc. 41) are denied as moot. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 31st day of March, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-01158-DGC Document 42 Filed 03/31/14 Page 4 of 4