Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01719/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01719-0/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

Julian Mora; and Julio Mora, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa

County, Arizona, in his individual and

official capacities; Captain Ray Jones, in

his individual capacity; Lieutenant Joe

Sousa, in his individual capacity; John

Does I through IV, in their individual

capacities; and Maricopa County, a body

politic,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1719-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a complaint against Defendants on

August 19, 2009. Dkt. #1. Plaintiffs allege that on February 11, 2009, they were unlawfully

detained during a workplace immigration raid by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Id.

¶¶ 1-2, 18-47. The complaint asserts eight claims: violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violations of Article 2, Sections 8 and 13 of the

Arizona Constitution, false arrest and imprisonment, assault, battery, and intentional

infliction of emotional distress. Id. ¶¶ 48-67.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #10. The motion has been fully briefed. Dkt. ##15, 16. For

reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motion.

Case 2:09-cv-01719-DGC Document 18 Filed 10/28/09 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 -

I. The Doe Defendants.

Citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. 1980), Defendants contend that the

four Doe Defendants should be dismissed without prejudice because § 1983 claims may be

asserted only against specifically known and named defendants. Dkt. #10 at 2-3. Gillespie

made clear, however, that where the identity of defendants cannot be known prior to the

filing of a complaint, the plaintiffs “should be given an opportunity through discovery to

identify the defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities[.]”

629 F.2d at 642; see Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs

allege that each Doe Defendant is a deputy or posse member with the Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office who actively participated in the alleged unlawful detention. Dkt. #1 ¶¶

12-15. Discovery will likely reveal the identities of the Doe Defendants. Dismissing the Doe

Defendants without prejudice only to have Plaintiffs seek leave to rename them in an

amended complaint would be a waste of time, money, and judicial resources. The Court will

deny the motion to dismiss with respect to the Doe Defendants.

II. The County’s Liability Under § 1983.

Defendants argue that the § 1983 claims must be dismissed to the extent they seek to

hold Maricopa County vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of its employees. Dkt. #10

at 3-4. Plaintiffs make clear that their § 1983 claims against Maricopa County are based not

on the doctrine of respondeat superior, but on a theory of direct municipal liability. Dkt. #15

at 5. A fair reading of the complaint supports this interpretation of the § 1983 claims. See

Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 2, 17, 38-44. The Court will deny the motion to dismiss with respect to the § 1983

claims.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #10) is denied.

2. The Court will set a case management conference by separate order.

DATED this 28th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01719-DGC Document 18 Filed 10/28/09 Page 2 of 2