Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08209/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08209-1/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 

Peter Michael Palmer, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Glenn A. Savona, individually and in his 

official capacity as Prescott City Prosecutor 

and Jane Doe Savona, husband and wife; 

Dan Murray, individually and in his official 

capacity as City of Prescott police 

department employee and Jane Doe 

Murray, husband and wife; Christine 

Keller, individually and in her official 

capacity as City of Prescott police 

department employee and Joseph Keller, 

wife and husband; Melody Thomas-Morgan 

(f.k.a. Melody Bodine), an individual; Mark 

M. Moore and Jane Doe Moore, 

individuals, husband and wife; City of 

Prescott, an Arizona municipal corporation, 

Defendants.

No. CV-10-08209-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 58) and (2) 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Clerk’s Judgment (Doc. 59). The Court now rules 

on the Motions. 

 On August 21, 2013, the Court granted Defendants Savona, Murray, Keller, and 

the City of Prescott’s Motion to Dismiss and directed that the Clerk of the Court enter 

Judgment. (Doc. 56). The Clerk of the Court entered Judgment on August 21, 2013. 

Case 3:10-cv-08209-JAT Document 63 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 6
- 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 

(Doc. 57). Plaintiff now moves to alter or amend the Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 59(e). Plaintiff moves to “vacate and reverse” the dismissals of 

Counts One, Two, Three, Five, Seven, Eight, and Twelve of his Amended Complaint as 

asserted against Defendants Savona and Murray. 

 “A Rule 59(e) motion should not be granted ‘unless the district court is presented 

with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 

change in the controlling law.’” McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 

2003) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc)). 

 Plaintiff first argues that the Court erred in citing Gonzales v. City of Phoenix, 52 

P.3d 184, 187 (Ariz. 2002) in stating the elements of a malicious prosecution claim. 

Plaintiff argues that the Court should have relied on Smith v. Lucia, 872 P.2d 1303 (Ariz. 

Ct. App. 1992). Plaintiff argues that, pursuant to Smith, he has somehow shown or 

adequately alleged that Defendant Savona believed he did not have probable cause to 

initiate a criminal action against Plaintiff and that this belief is demonstrated by a police 

report written by Defendant Murray. The Court previously addressed this argument in its 

Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and nothing in Plaintiff’s repetition of this 

argument demonstrates that the Court committed clear error. 

 Plaintiff also attaches notes to his Rule 59(e) motion and argues that these notes 

were written by Defendant Savona and somehow support the conclusory assertion in his 

complaint that Defendant Savona lacked probable cause to file a criminal complaint 

against Plaintiff. Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of these notes. The 

Court will assume for the purposes of this Order that the Court can take judicial notice of 

these notes. 

 To the extent Plaintiff argues that these notes somehow render the allegations in 

his complaint sufficient to state a claim for malicious prosecution against Defendant 

Savona, Plaintiff should have included them in his original complaint. Plaintiff cannot 

now add allegations to his complaint. Additionally, it is not clear to the Court how these 

Case 3:10-cv-08209-JAT Document 63 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

notes transform the allegations regarding Defendant Savona’s lack of probable cause into 

a properly stated claim for malicious prosecution. Moreover, nothing in these notes 

changes the Court’s analysis that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution 

in his complaint. 

 Plaintiff next argues that the Court misrepresented Slade v. City of Phoenix in 

stating that the existence or lack of probable cause is a question of law to be determined 

by the Court. Plaintiff argues that the Court did not include the full quote from Slade, 

which actually states that whether a given state of facts constitutes probable cause is a 

question of law to be determined by the Court. In this case, the Court analyzed whether, 

based on the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff stated a claim for malicious 

prosecution. The Court necessarily examined “a state of facts” as set forth in the 

allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint and determined that, if the Court were to accept the 

non-conclusory allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint as true, Plaintiff failed to allege facts 

that would support the conclusion that Defendant Savona did not have probable cause to 

initiate a criminal proceeding against Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff disagrees with this 

conclusion, such disagreement does not demonstrate that the Court committed clear error 

in its analysis. Plaintiff’s argument that a jury must decide whether probable cause 

existed in this case ignores this Court’s finding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon 

which relief could be granted for malicious prosecution in his complaint. 

 Plaintiff next argues that the Court misrepresented Arizona Revised Statutes 

section 13-105(b) in discussing the definition of “knowingly.”1

 Plaintiff’s arguments 

with regard to the definition of knowingly reflect a disagreement with this Court’s Order, 

but do not demonstrate that the Court committed clear error in its analysis. 

 Plaintiff further argues that the Court “tr[ied] the facts” of this case. Contrary to 

 

1

 Plaintiff correctly points out that the Court committed a clerical error and cited 

to section 13-105(10)(a) for the definition of “knowingly,” when in fact that definition is 

contained in section 13-105(10)(b). 

Case 3:10-cv-08209-JAT Document 63 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 6
- 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 

Plaintiff’s argument, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which 

relief could be granted based on the facts as alleged in his complaint. 

 Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to show that the Court committed clear error in 

finding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution or false light 

invasion of privacy in his complaint. 

 Plaintiff next argues that the Court committed error in dismissing his claim against 

Defendant Savona based on a violation of Plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights. Plaintiff 

argues that the Court overlooked the argument Plaintiff made in response to the motion to 

dismiss that: 

Defendant Savona did not have cause to object to Plaintiff’s 

oral (and later written) motion to modify the release 

conditions to restore Plaintiff’s Second Amendment right 

because Defendant Savona did not have probable cause to 

detain Plaintiff to charge him criminally in the first place. 

Thus Defendant Savona lacked jurisdiction to argue to 

deprive Plaintiff of his Second Amendment right when the 

Prescott court turned to him for input. 

(Doc. 59 at 8). Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the Court considered his argument. 

Indeed, the Court noted that “Plaintiff further argues that Defendant Savona is liable for a 

violation of Plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights because he opposed Plaintiff’s motion 

to modify the release conditions.” However, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to state 

a claim against Defendant Savona based on a violation of Plaintiff’s Second Amendment 

rights because it was not clear from the allegations in the Complaint how Defendant 

Savona’s motion practice in arguing for certain release conditions equated to Judge 

Markham’s ultimate decision to impose certain release conditions. As a result, the Court 

found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against 

Defendant Savona for a violation of Plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights. Although 

Plaintiff disagrees with this conclusion, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Court 

committed clear error in its analysis. 

 Plaintiff also argues that the Court erred in stating that Defendant Savona was 

Case 3:10-cv-08209-JAT Document 63 Filed 09/30/13 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

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 

entitled to “absolute immunity” on this claim. However, the basis for the Court’s holding 

was not that Defendant Savona was entitled to absolute immunity, but rather that Plaintiff 

failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against Defendant Savona based 

on a violation of Plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed 

to demonstrate that the Court committed clear error when it discussed prosecutorial 

immunity. 

 Plaintiff next argues that the Court’s ruling that Plaintiff failed to state a § 1983 

claim based on an alleged violation of his Fourth Amendment rights “does not pass the 

‘sanity check.’” (Doc. 59 at 9). The Court specifically held that, based on Plaintiff’s 

allegations that a summons required Plaintiff to “stop and appear on certain days before 

the Prescott court under threat of conventional arrest,” Plaintiff failed to state a claim for 

a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff argues that the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals’ case that the Court relied on in finding that Plaintiff’s allegations did not 

result in a seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment was wrongly decided and “needs 

to be reviewed.” (Doc. 59 at 10). Plaintiff’s disagreement with this Court’s Order and 

the law as stated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is not a basis for Rule 59(e) relief. 

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Court committed clear error in its analysis of 

his § 1983 claim based on violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. 

 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to 

Rule 59(e) relief and his motion to alter or amend the Court’s Judgment is denied. 

 Prior to filing his Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, Plaintiff filed an 

“Expedited Motion for Temporary Reinstatement (or Stay of Dismissal) Pending 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal.” Plaintiff argues that a stay of the 

dismissal of this case is necessary pending the Court’s decision on Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration, so that Plaintiff can timely file an appeal. Because the Court has ruled 

on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay is denied as moot. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

Case 3:10-cv-08209-JAT Document 63 Filed 09/30/13 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

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 Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 58) is denied as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Clerk’s 

Judgment (Doc. 59) is denied. 

 Dated this 30th day of September, 2013. 

Case 3:10-cv-08209-JAT Document 63 Filed 09/30/13 Page 6 of 6