Filed: Jun. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER EILEEN S. WILLETT , Magistrate Judge . The Court has considered Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) filed on May 12, 2015. No response has been filed. The matter is deemed submitted for decision. 1 LRCiv 7.2(i) provides that if counsel does not serve and file a timely responsive memorandum to a motion, such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the granting of the pending motion, and the Court may summarily dispose of the motion. Therefore, the Court may summarily dispose of
Summary: ORDER EILEEN S. WILLETT , Magistrate Judge . The Court has considered Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) filed on May 12, 2015. No response has been filed. The matter is deemed submitted for decision. 1 LRCiv 7.2(i) provides that if counsel does not serve and file a timely responsive memorandum to a motion, such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the granting of the pending motion, and the Court may summarily dispose of the motion. Therefore, the Court may summarily dispose of D..
More
ORDER
EILEEN S. WILLETT, Magistrate Judge.
The Court has considered Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) filed on May 12, 2015. No response has been filed. The matter is deemed submitted for decision.1
LRCiv 7.2(i) provides that if counsel does not serve and file a timely responsive memorandum to a motion, such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the granting of the pending motion, and the Court may summarily dispose of the motion. Therefore, the Court may summarily dispose of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. In addition, the Court finds upon review of the public records provided in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are barred as a matter of law on the basis of claim preclusion and issue preclusion.2 In addition, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim as a matter of law. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice on the merits.
Plaintiff previously litigated his current claim in Maricopa County Superior Court CV 2013-001618. Final judgment was entered against Plaintiff in favor of the State of Arizona and Arizona Department of Corrections on June 25, 2014. As employees of the Arizona Department of Corrections, the named Defendants in this case are parties in privity with the Arizona Department of Corrections for purposes of claim and issue preclusion. See Corbett v. Manor Care of Am., Inc., 146 P.3d 1027, 1039 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). Defendants correctly set forth in their Motion to Dismiss the application of the legal concepts of claim and issue preclusion to this case. Defendants further persuasively set forth an analysis of how Plaintiff has failed to state a claim as a matter of law.
For the reasons set forth in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9). Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1-2 at 1-7) is dismissed with prejudice.
The Court further finds, in its discretion, that Defendants are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Application for an award of attorneys' fees shall be filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within ten business days of the filing of this Order.
