Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01641/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01641-0/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

Honey R. Siegal, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Cathie Jarboe; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1641-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), when a Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis,

"the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that - - ... (B) the action

or appeal - - (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief."

In this case, Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. After reviewing the complaint, and

considering Plaintiff's arguments at the emergency hearing, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails

to state a claim against any federal or state actor as follows. Additionally, having found that

Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any federal or state actor, the Court finds that any basis

for federal subject matter jurisdiction (such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens) has been

dismissed with the federal and state actors. Having found that there is no basis for federal

subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the

remaining state law claims (without deciding whether any of those claims state a claim).

Case 2:06-cv-01641-JAT Document 8 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

State of Arizona and Governor Janet Napolitano. At the hearing, Plaintiff advised

the Court that her only claims against the state of Arizona arose from the conduct of

Governor Napolitano; therefore, this Defendant shall be treated as a single entity. Plaintiff's

claim against the Governor is that the Governor gave a grant to Gold Creek, Inc. of

Scottsdale, which Plaintiff claims (without support) is a company that really belongs to

Plaintiff. Regardless of whether at some point Plaintiff was defrauded out of her alleged

ownership of this company, Plaintiff's allegation that the Governor gave this company a grant

check fails to state a claim against the Governor. Therefore, Governor Napolitano and the

state of Arizona will be dismissed. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Governor Napolitano (Doc.

#6) will be denied as moot.

Douglas E. Middleton, Constable North Valley Justice Court. At the hearing,

Plaintiff claimed that Constable Middleton forcibly evicted her from her home. At the

hearing, Plaintiff read from the order on the forcible entry and detainer that Constable

Middleton executed against her. Therefore, because Constable Middleton was acting

pursuant to a Court order, the Court finds Plaintiff fails to state a claim against him.

Alternatively, the Court finds that because Constable Middleton was acting pursuant to a

Court order, he is entitled to qualified immunity; and, under § 1915(e)(2)(b)(iii) Plaintiff

cannot proceed against officer Middleton because she is seeking monetary relief against

someone who is immune from such relief.

Jacqueline McVey and Gerald Williams. Both of these individuals are judges who

in some way presided over the forcible entry and detainer against Plaintiff. First, the Court

finds that all of Plaintiff's claims against these judges are complaints about their rulings in

the case and therefore fail to state a claim. Alternatively, the Court finds that these judges

are entitled to judicial immunity; and, under § 1915(e)(2)(b)(iii) Plaintiff cannot proceed

against McVey and Williams because she is seeking monetary relief against individuals who

are immune from such relief. 

Case 2:06-cv-01641-JAT Document 8 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Doug Patterson, Canadian Consulate "trade commissioner." Plaintiff claims that

Mr. Patterson is a fraud because he does not provide international assistance. The Court

finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Mr. Patterson.

Ryan Cuancara, Department of the Treasury, United State of America. Plaintiff

has advised the Court that she gave Mr. Cuancara some exhibits, he took the exhibits, he then

returned the exhibits to her, and took no further action. The Court finds that Plaintiff fails

to state a claim against Mr. Cuancara.

The Court finds that all other parties listed on the complaint are not state or federal

actors and any claims against them do not provide a basis for federal subject matter

jurisdiction. Additionally, because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over any potential state law claims, this action will be dismissed. 

Finally, and alternatively, at the conclusion hearing the Court asked Plaintiff what

relief she was seeking. She stated that she was seeking to have the Court evict the people

currently living in her former home, order that she be allowed to move back into her former

home, indict Richard Stober (Plaintiff's ex-husband), order that all accounts and properties

in the name of Richard Stober be transferred into Plaintiff's name, and order the United

State's Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigations to investigate her claims.

Under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) the Court finds all of this requested relief to be either malicious

(because it is seeking to re-litigate issues decided by Plaintiff's divorce decree) or frivolous

(because it is seeking relief beyond the jurisdictional powers of the Court). Therefore, for

this alternative reason, the Complaint will be dismissed.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), this action is dismissed

for the reasons stated above; and the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Governor Napolitano

(Doc. #6) and the Motion for Permanent Waiver of all fees (Doc. #5) are denied as moot; and

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01641-JAT Document 8 Filed 07/18/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for deferral of fees for transcript of

hearing (Doc. #7) is still pending and will be addressed by separate order.

DATED this 17th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01641-JAT Document 8 Filed 07/18/06 Page 4 of 4