Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02543/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02543-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

John Wayne Farmer, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dana Youhas, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2543-PHX-RCB (SPL)

ORDER

On February 8, 2012, this Court granted Defendant Youhas’s motion for summary

judgment and dismissed her from the case, leaving what appeared to be one remaining

defendant who was never served. On February 15, 2012, pursuant to this Court’s directive,

the assigned Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 66) instructing Plaintiff

to show cause why the claim against Officer #2381 should not be dismissed based on failure

to serve. On March 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter the Judgment (Doc. 68),

presumably in response to the order to show cause. Plaintiff indicates in his motion that

Officer #2381 is actually Defendant Youhas. He explains that in Defendant Youhas’s

Answer to Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 18), Defendant Youhas states that badge

number 2381 belongs to her, not one of the Phoenix police officers who transported Plaintiff

to jail, as suggested in the Second Amended Complaint. Doc. 18 at 6, fn.1. Plaintiff further

explains that he has not been able to identify any of the Phoenix police officers who

Case 2:09-cv-02543-RCB-SPL Document 71 Filed 03/29/12 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 -

transported him to jail.

Although Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint clearly indicates he intended to

assert a claim against one of the Phoenix police officers who transported him to the Fourth

Avenue Jail, the officer will be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s acknowledgment that he has

been unable to locate and serve the officer. Because no other defendants remain, this action

will be dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That the unidentified Phoenix police officer (mistakenly identified as Officer #2381

in the Second Amended Complaint) is dismissed from this action;

That this action is dismissed and the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly;

and

That Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter the Judgment (Doc. 68), is denied as moot.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2012.

Case 2:09-cv-02543-RCB-SPL Document 71 Filed 03/29/12 Page 2 of 2