Case Law

Donahoe v. Arpaio

Donahoe v. Arpaio

Document

Cited Authorities (94)

Cited in (62)

Related

869 F.Supp.2d 1020

Gary DONAHOE and Cherie Donahoe, husband and wife, Plaintiffs,

v.Sheriff Joseph ARPAIO and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; Andrew Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R. Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy Chief David Hendershott and Anna Hendershott, husband and wife; Peter Spaw and Jane Doe Spaw, husband and wife; Maricopa County, a municipal entity; Jon Does I–X; Jane Does I–X; Black Corporations I–V; and White Partnerships I–V, Defendants.

Susan Schuerman, Plaintiff,

v.Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants.

Sandra Wilson and Paul Wilson, husband and wife, Plaintiffs,

v.Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants.

Conley D. Wolfswinkel, a single man; Brandon D. Wolswinkel, a single man; Ashton A. Wolfswinkel, a single man; Vanderbilt Farms, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; ABCDW, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Stone Canyon, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Vistoso Partners, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; and W Harquahala, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiffs,

v.Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants.

Mary Rose Wilcox and Earl Wilcox, wife and husband, Plaintiffs,

v.Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants.

Donald T. Stapley, Jr. and Kathleen Stapley, husband and wife, Plaintiffs,

v.Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants.

Barbara Mundell, Plaintiff,

v.Maricopa County, body politic of the State of Arizona; et al., Defendants.

Nos. CV10–2756–PHX–NVW, CV10–2757–PHX–NVW, CV10–2758–PHX–NVW, CV11–0116–PHX–NVW, CV11–0473–PHX–NVW, CV11–0902–PHX–NVW, CV11–1921–PHX–NVW.

United States District Court, D. Arizona.

April 9, 2012.

Lawrence J. Wulkan, M. Elizabeth Nillen, Michael C. Manning, Stefan Mark Palys, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Kenneth B. Vaughn, Merwin D. Grant, Grant & Vaughn PC, Colin F. Campbell, Kathleen Erin Brody Omeara, Osborn Maledon PA, Phoenix, AZ, Lawrence C. Wright, Wright & Associates, Mesa, AZ, Shannon Marie Eagan, Stephen C. Neal, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Daryl A. Audilett, Kimble Nelson Audilett & Kastner PC, Tucson, AZ, Donald Wilson, Jr., Richard E. Chambliss, Sarah Lynn Barnes, Broening Oberg Woods & Wilson PC, Barry Matthew Markson, Caleb Saul Lihn, Thomas Thomas & Markson PC, Nicole Suzanne Kaseta, Rebeca Hoeffer Moskowitz, Steven A. Lamar, Beer & Toone PC, Phoenix, AZ, Douglas V. Drury, James Paul Mueller, Mueller & Drury PLLC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendants.

ORDER

NEIL V. WAKE, District Judge.

+-------------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS  ¦
+-------------------¦
¦                   ¦
+-------------------+

+----------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦SUMMARY OF COUNTS TO BE DISMISSED    ¦1034¦
+---+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦                                     ¦    ¦
+---+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦II.¦BACKGROUND FACTS                     ¦1035¦
+----------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.¦Wilcox Complaint                  ¦1036¦
+----+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦    ¦B.¦Mundell Complaint                 ¦1038¦
+----+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦    ¦C.¦Donahoe Complaint                 ¦1041¦
+----+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦    ¦D.¦Schuerman Complaint               ¦1044¦
+----+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦    ¦E.¦Wilson Complaint                  ¦1046¦
+----+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦    ¦F.¦Stapley Complaint                 ¦1048¦
+-----------------------------------------------+

+---+
¦¦ ¦¦
+---+

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦III.  ¦LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTIONS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. (12)(B)(6)¦1051  ¦
+------+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦      ¦                                                           ¦      ¦
+------+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦IV.   ¦CIVIL RICO COMPLAINT                                       ¦1052  ¦
+------+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦      ¦                                                           ¦      ¦
+------+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦V.    ¦ANALYSIS OF RULE 12(B)(6) MOTIONS                          ¦1053  ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A. ¦Wrongful Institution of Civil Proceedings¦1054 ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦   ¦1. ¦Absolute Immunity for Federal Civil RICO Filing¦1054  ¦
+-----+---+---+-----------------------------------------------+------¦
¦     ¦   ¦2. ¦Non–Immunity Challenges                        ¦1057  ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦B.¦Malicious Prosecution             ¦1057¦
+-----------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦      ¦    ¦1. ¦Immunity as to Prosecutorial or Investigative        ¦1057  ¦
¦      ¦    ¦   ¦Functions                                            ¦      ¦
+------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦      ¦    ¦2. ¦Non–Immunity Challenges                              ¦1059  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦C. ¦Abuse of Process                            ¦1060 ¦
+-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦     ¦D. ¦Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress¦1061 ¦
+-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦     ¦E. ¦Defamation                                  ¦1061 ¦
+-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦     ¦F. ¦False Light Invasion of Privacy             ¦1063 ¦
+-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦     ¦G. ¦Intrusion Upon Seclusion                    ¦1064 ¦
+-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦     ¦H. ¦False Arrest                                ¦1064 ¦
+-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦     ¦I. ¦Violations of Arizona's Racketeering Statute¦1065 ¦
+-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦     ¦J. ¦Violations of the Arizona Constitution      ¦1067 ¦
+-----+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦     ¦K. ¦Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983               ¦1067 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦      ¦    ¦1. ¦Qualified Immunity                                   ¦1067  ¦
+------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦      ¦    ¦2. ¦Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech Rights       ¦1069  ¦
+------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦      ¦    ¦3. ¦Unlawful Search                                      ¦1070  ¦
+------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦      ¦    ¦4. ¦Substantive Due Process                              ¦1072  ¦
+------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦      ¦    ¦5. ¦Retaliation for Exercise of Fifth and Fourteenth     ¦1072  ¦
¦      ¦    ¦   ¦Amendment Rights                                     ¦      ¦
+------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦      ¦    ¦6. ¦Equal Protection                                     ¦1073  ¦
+------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦      ¦    ¦7. ¦Conspiracy to Violate Constitutional Rights          ¦1074  ¦
+------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦      ¦    ¦8. ¦Unconstitutional Policies, Customs, Failure to Train,¦1075  ¦
¦      ¦    ¦   ¦and Negligent Supervision                            ¦      ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---+
¦¦ ¦¦
+---+

+----------------------------------------------------------------+
¦VI.  ¦MOTIONS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 8                    ¦1076  ¦
+-----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦     ¦                                                   ¦      ¦
+-----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦VII. ¦DEFENDANT SPAW'S MOTION TO DISMISS                 ¦1076  ¦
+-----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦     ¦                                                   ¦      ¦
+-----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦VIII.¦LEAVE TO AMEND                                     ¦1077  ¦
+-----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦     ¦                                                   ¦      ¦
+-----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦IX.  ¦ORDER                                              ¦1078  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

Pending before the Court are multiple motions to dismiss the amended complaints filed by Plaintiffs in this action: Defendant Maricopa County's Partial Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaints of Plaintiffs Stapley, Donahoe and Wilson (Doc. 270); Thomas Defendants' Consolidated Motion to Dismiss Claims in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaints Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), as the Claims are Barred by Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity (Doc. 271); Defendants Arpaios' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCivP 8,...

5 cases

Document | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona – 2015

United States v. Cnty. of Maricopa

"...immunity merely because it may be desirable for some policy reason.”).Arpaio cites Donahoe v. Arpaio in support of his position. 869 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D.Ariz.2012) aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir.2013). In Donahoe, Arpaio had filed suit against various Maricopa Cou..."

Document | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona – 2013

Donahoe v. Arpaio

"...be granted in part and denied in part.I. SUMMARY OF RULINGS The allegations underlying this dispute are set forth in Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D.Ariz.2012), aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir.2013). They describe an extended criminal and civil campaign ..."

Document | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona – 2020

Casavelli v. Johanson

"...These actions simply reflect a functioning legal practice, however, and the practice of law is not racketeering. Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1053 (D. Ariz. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2013). Even if Plaintiffs properly assert claims of fo..."

Document | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona – 2013

Donahoe v. Arpaio

"...be granted in part and denied in part.I. SUMMARY OF RULINGS The allegations underlying this dispute are set forth in Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (D. Ariz. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2013). They describe an extended criminal and civil camp..."

Document | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada – 2018

"...allege that defendants used the legal process to accomplish a goal other than for what it was created. See, e.g., Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1060 (D. Ariz. 2012) (dismissing § 1983 abuse of process claim under Arizona law, which requires the same elements as Nevada). In Donaho..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

2 books and journal articles

Document | Article 6.5 Invasion of Privacy

§ 6.5.4.4.4 FALSE LIGHT AND DEFAMATION.

"...See Employment Torts § 6.4.4.[39] Desert Palm Surgical Grp., 236 Ariz. at ¶ 29, 343 P.3d at 450; see also Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1063 (D. Ariz. 2012); Douglass v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 769 F.2d 1128 (7th Cir. 1985) (Plaintiff consented to the publication of her nude phot..."

Document | Núm. 58, January 2014 – 2014

Part two: case summaries by major topic.

"...either a payment plan or community service. (Hidalgo County Jail, Texas) U.S. District Court EMPLOYEE QUALIFICATIONS Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D.Ariz. 2012). In consolidated cases, members of a county board of supervisors, county staff, and judges of county courts, brought acti..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

2 books and journal articles

Document | Article 6.5 Invasion of Privacy

§ 6.5.4.4.4 FALSE LIGHT AND DEFAMATION.

"...See Employment Torts § 6.4.4.[39] Desert Palm Surgical Grp., 236 Ariz. at ¶ 29, 343 P.3d at 450; see also Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1063 (D. Ariz. 2012); Douglass v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 769 F.2d 1128 (7th Cir. 1985) (Plaintiff consented to the publication of her nude phot..."

Document | Núm. 58, January 2014 – 2014

Part two: case summaries by major topic.

"...either a payment plan or community service. (Hidalgo County Jail, Texas) U.S. District Court EMPLOYEE QUALIFICATIONS Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D.Ariz. 2012). In consolidated cases, members of a county board of supervisors, county staff, and judges of county courts, brought acti..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

5 cases

Document | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona – 2015

United States v. Cnty. of Maricopa

"...immunity merely because it may be desirable for some policy reason.”).Arpaio cites Donahoe v. Arpaio in support of his position. 869 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D.Ariz.2012) aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir.2013). In Donahoe, Arpaio had filed suit against various Maricopa Cou..."

Document | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona – 2013

Donahoe v. Arpaio

"...be granted in part and denied in part.I. SUMMARY OF RULINGS The allegations underlying this dispute are set forth in Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D.Ariz.2012), aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir.2013). They describe an extended criminal and civil campaign ..."

Document | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona – 2020

Casavelli v. Johanson

"...These actions simply reflect a functioning legal practice, however, and the practice of law is not racketeering. Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1053 (D. Ariz. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2013). Even if Plaintiffs properly assert claims of fo..."

Document | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona – 2013

Donahoe v. Arpaio

"...be granted in part and denied in part.I. SUMMARY OF RULINGS The allegations underlying this dispute are set forth in Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (D. Ariz. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2013). They describe an extended criminal and civil camp..."

Document | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada – 2018

"...allege that defendants used the legal process to accomplish a goal other than for what it was created. See, e.g., Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1060 (D. Ariz. 2012) (dismissing § 1983 abuse of process claim under Arizona law, which requires the same elements as Nevada). In Donaho..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex