Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08153/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08153-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles
Defendant
Bartlett Elliott
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 

Bartlett Elliott, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-08153-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are: (1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) and (2) 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8). The Court now 

rules on the Motions. 

 On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court. In his Complaint, 

Plaintiff alleges that he is unable to obtain a driver’s license in the State of New Mexico 

based on motor vehicle citations he received in the State of Arizona. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff 

alleges that this is a violation of his rights “under the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, 

and Declaration of Independence.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff alleges that, while he recognizes 

that driving is a privilege, he has the right to purchase groceries and other necessities of 

life and he cannot do so without a license to drive. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that he seeks to 

learn what the “State of Arizona’s Motor Vehicle Division [has] to do with New 

Mexico’s Motor Vehicle Division.” (Id.). Plaintiff states that, to him, “that is invading 

[his] constitutional rights. (Id.). 

 As relief, Plaintiff seeks $1,000,000.00 “for this dictatorial license invasion of 

another state’s motor vehicle[] provisions (authority), and for the ensuing mental anguish 

Case 3:12-cv-08153-JAT Document 11 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

and loss of use.” (Id. at 3). 

 Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff did not file a Response to the Motion to Dismiss, but 

rather filed a “Motion to Strike” the Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Strike simply 

responds to the arguments in the Motion to Dismiss and does not provide any basis for 

the Court to strike the Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is 

denied. The Court will nonetheless consider the Motion to Strike (Doc. 8) and the Reply 

in Support of the Motion to Strike (Doc. 10) to be Plaintiff’s response to the Motion to 

Dismiss. 

 Defendant moves to dismiss because it is a non-jural entity that does not have the 

capacity to sue or be sued. “Governmental entities have no inherent power and possess 

only those powers and duties delegated to them by their enabling statutes. Thus, a 

governmental entity may be sued only if the legislature has so provided.” Braillard v. 

Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010) (internal citation omitted). 

Defendant argues that no Arizona statute confers the power on the Arizona Department 

of Transportation or the Motor Vehicles Division of the Arizona Department of 

Transportation to sue or be sued. Plaintiff did not respond to this argument. 

Accordingly, Defendant Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles will be dismissed 

because it is a non-jural entity. 

 Defendant further argues that, even if Plaintiff named the State of Arizona as a 

Defendant, Plaintiff’s claims fail because the Eleventh Amendment bars such a suit, 

Plaintiff has not pled any cause of action that would subject the State to suit pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. section 1983, and Plaintiff has not complied with Arizona’s Notice of Claim 

requirements pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-821.01. 

 In response, Plaintiff argues that “[u]nder the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiff has the 

right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, that being allowed to navigate (drive a 

vehicle) to obtain the necessities of life.” (Doc. 8). 

 The Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule 

Case 3:12-cv-08153-JAT Document 11 Filed 03/18/13 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) 

insufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1990). To survive a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state 

a claim, a complaint must meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

8(a)(2). In this case, Plaintiff has failed to articulate any cognizable legal theory. As 

such, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and the Court 

will not address Defendant’s other arguments. 

 Plaintiff has not requested leave to amend and has not amended as a matter of 

right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 

F.3d 896, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing prior precedent that courts must grant leave to 

amend sua sponte unless a pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other 

facts and that, under the old version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, parties had 

leave to amend as of right even upon dismissal prior to the filing of an answer, then 

noting that under the current version of Rule 15 “parties have 21 days from both 

responsive pleadings and motions to dismiss to amend as of right, so the situation has 

changed.”) (internal citations omitted). Further, the Court finds that granting Plaintiff 

leave to amend would be futile. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

(Doc. 8) is denied. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is 

granted. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 18th day of March, 2013. 

Case 3:12-cv-08153-JAT Document 11 Filed 03/18/13 Page 3 of 3