Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02599/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02599-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arizona Supreme Court
Defendant
Arizona Supreme Court Fiduciary Certification Program
Defendant
Fiduciary Licensing Program
Defendant
Orla Kenneth Lucas
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Orla Kenneth Lucas, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Supreme Court Fiduciary

Certification Program aka Fiduciary

Licensing Program,; Arizona Supreme

Court, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-2599-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Arizona Supreme Court’s Motion to Dismiss for

Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (doc. # 10). On a motion to dismiss, all allegations of

material fact are assumed to be true and construed in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). Dismissal

cannot be avoided by mere conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences. Id.

I. Facts Assumed to Be True

Plaintiff Orla Kenneth Lucas is an Arizona resident. He has been subjected to the

probate laws of the State of Arizona and specifically subjected to the imposition of a

public fiduciary, Southwest Fiduciary, Inc., and its principals, Greg Dovico and Peggy

Dovico. The Complaint identifies the Defendants as “Arizona Supreme Court Fiduciary

Certification Program aka Fiduciary Licensing Program and the Arizona Supreme Court.” 

Case 2:09-cv-02599-NVW Document 13 Filed 06/23/10 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 -

It alleges, “Defendants are agencies of the State of Arizona or are otherwise political

subdivisions of the State of Arizona, or are, in fact, the State of Arizona.”

 Pursuant to Arizona statute, the Arizona Supreme Court created a fiduciary

licensure program and promulgated rules and procedures regarding the licensure of public

fiduciaries. It has been reported to the Arizona Supreme Court and the fiduciary licensure

program that Southwest Fiduciary, Inc., and its principals have breached the rules and

regulations applicable to public fiduciaries. Plaintiff has requested on numerous

occasions that Southwest Fiduciary, Inc., and its principals be sanctioned and removed

from the list of approved or certified public fiduciaries. Plaintiff and others have

provided information to the Arizona Supreme Court and the fiduciary licensure program

that Southwest Fiduciary, Inc., and its principals have:

. . . maintained a wrongful practice of defrauding individuals that have been

placed in their care and custody; that they have set upon a course of conduct

designed to fleece the elderly without any regard for their well being; that

they have routinely drained the accounts of the individuals that have been

placed in their care.

Despite numerous complaints, the Arizona Supreme Court and the fiduciary licensure

program have refused to remove public fiduciary licensure from Southwest Fiduciary,

Inc., and its principals. 

II. Analysis

Defendant Arizona Supreme Court moves for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Complaint tries or hopes to allege a

conclusory claim under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The

Court need not say whether that bare label raises a substantial federal question in the

technical sense so as to give federal subject matter jurisdiction, for the thrust of the

Motion to Dismiss is that the action, whether grounded in state or federal law, is barred

by the Eleventh Amendment. That thrust strikes home.

The Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a state unless Congress has abrogated

state sovereign immunity or the state has waived it. Holley v. California Dep’t of

Corrections, 599 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010). A.R.S. § 14-5651(A) requires the

Case 2:09-cv-02599-NVW Document 13 Filed 06/23/10 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 -

Arizona Supreme Court to administer a fiduciary licensure program, adopt rules, and

establish and collect fees necessary for its implementation. The public fiduciary licensure

program is not a jural entity; it is an activity of the Arizona Supreme Court imposed by

statute and regulatory in nature. Defendant Arizona Supreme Court is more than just a

state agency; it is the center of one of the three constitutional branches of state

government. Ariz. Const. Art. III, VI. It has “administrative supervision over all the

courts of the State.” Ariz. Const. Art. VI § 3. For Eleventh Amendment purposes, it is an

arm of the State of Arizona. The principle that local governmental entities lack Eleventh

Amendment immunity has no play here. 

To the extent the Complaint seeks to compel the Arizona Supreme Court to

comply with state law, it is plainly barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Pennhurst State

Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). While Congress may abrogate Eleventh

Amendment immunity pursuant to its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment under

section 5 thereof, Plaintiff does not even argue that any federal statute has abrogated the

Arizona Supreme Court’s immunity in this case. Plaintiff’s general assertion, without

authority, that the Fourteenth Amendment itself abrogates Eleventh Amendment

immunity for Fifth Amendment due process claims is groundless. Nor is there any

suggestion that the State has waived its immunity.

Therefore, the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff from suing the Arizona

Supreme Court in federal court, and the Complaint will be dismissed.

III. Leave to Amend

Leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a)(2). But, “[f]utility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for

leave to amend.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff’s

Complaint is replete with other deficiencies. It fails to state any state or federal claim

upon which relief can be granted even apart from the Eleventh Amendment bar to federal

court jurisdiction. The Complaint may fall short of a substantial question of federal law

needed for federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, though perhaps that

Case 2:09-cv-02599-NVW Document 13 Filed 06/23/10 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 -

could be improved upon. No subject matter jurisdiction is possible under 28 U.S.C. §

1332, with neither diversity nor citizenship, as the Arizona Supreme Court is not a citizen

of a state. Even supplemental jurisdiction of state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is

barred by Pennhurst. If amendment could stiffen the federal question basis of the suit and

even bring into play some valid substantive principle of federal law, amendment would

remain futile because the Eleventh Amendment still would bar this federal court from

hearing the case. Therefore, leave to amend will be denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Arizona Supreme Court’s Motion

to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (doc. # 10) is granted for the reason

that this action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment dismissing this action

under the Eleventh Amendment. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

Dated: June 22, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02599-NVW Document 13 Filed 06/23/10 Page 4 of 4