Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01486/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01486-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Peter Anthony Mangano
Plaintiff
Yuma Probation Department
Defendant

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

Peter Anthony Mangano, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Yuma Probation Department, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-08-1486-PHX-MHB

ORDER

Pending before the Court is “State Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. #7). After

considering the arguments raised by the parties in their briefing, the Court now issues the

following ruling.

BACKGROUND

This lawsuit arises from Plaintiff Peter Anthony Mangano’s allegation that Ms.

Hoffman, a supervisor in the Yuma Probation Department (Defendant), falsely caused the

arrest of Plaintiff. It is unclear from the pleadings the exact date of Plaintiff’s alleged false

arrest. However, Plaintiff indicated twice in his Complaint that his arrest occurred nearly

two years ago. (Doc. #1 at 1, 5.) Specifically, Plaintiff states on page one, line 4, that he was

arrested “over two plus years” ago, and on page five, line 9, he asserts that his “pleading is

filed into the 24th month of the Statute of Limitations.” (Doc. #1 at 1, 5.) The only defendant

Plaintiff lists in his Complaint is the Yuma Probation Department. 

Case 2:08-cv-01486-MHB Document 21 Filed 07/09/09 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

Plaintiff filed his “False Arrest” Complaint on August 12, 2008 (Doc. # 1). Defendant

filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 7, 2008 (Doc. #7). Plaintiff filed its Response on

December 9, 2008 (Doc. #17). 

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s claim is barred because the Yuma Probation

Department is not a jural entity. In response, Plaintiff concedes that he failed to name the

State of Arizona as the defendant. Additionally, Plaintiff asks the Court to mitigate his

failure and hold him “to less stringent standards” and protect him from “the consequences

of confusion” (Doc. #17 at 3, 4) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972), and

Robinson v. America’s Best Contacts and Eyeglasses, 876 F. 2d 596 (7th Cir. 1989)).

Plaintiff cites to Haines v. Kerner in error. In Haines, the Supreme Court held when a pro

se plaintiff submits a complaint, his brief statement of the case should be held “to less

stringent standards” before the Court dismisses the case for failure to state a claim. 404 U.S.

at 520-521. The Court did not rule that less stringent standards should apply because a

plaintiff failed to identify the correct defendant. Additionally, Plaintiff’s “consequences of

confusion” argument is invalid because in the opinion of the non-binding case of Robinson

v. America’s Best Contacts and Eyeglasses, the Seventh Circuit does not hold that “a district

court should also take care to protect [pro se] plaintiffs from consequences of confusion”

(Doc. #17 at 4). 

Probation departments are not jural entities. The probation departments of the various

counties in Arizona are agencies of the judicial department of the State. State v. Pima

County Adult Probation Department, 147 Ariz. 146, 148-149 (App. 1985). State agencies

created by the legislature have only the powers and attributes ascribed to them by the

legislature. Cox v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit Improvement Council, 27 Ariz.

App. 494 (1976). The Arizona Legislature has conferred the right to sue and be sued to some

state agencies. The agencies that have been conferred those rights are referred to as jural

entities. An action cannot be brought against a state agency that lacks the authority to sue

Case 2:08-cv-01486-MHB Document 21 Filed 07/09/09 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

and be sued. Kimball v. Shofstall, 17 Ariz. App. 11 (1972). The legislation which provides

for the establishment and administration of probation departments, A.R.S. Title 12, Chapter

2, Articles 6 & 7 does not include an authorization for probation departments to sue or be

sued. The Yuma Probation Department is therefore not a jural entity, and cannot be subject

to suit.

CONCLUSION

The Court – finding that Plaintiff has failed to sue a jural entity – will grant the

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that “State Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. #7) is

GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Allow Electronic Filing”

(Doc. # 18) is DENIED as moot;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s “Emergency Motion for Stay of Case

Proceedings” (Doc. #20) is DENIED as moot;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DATED this 8th day of July, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01486-MHB Document 21 Filed 07/09/09 Page 3 of 3