Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Baker v. Bradley

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department E

September 12, 2013

JOHN P. BAKER, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
DEPUTY WARDEN BRADLEY; CO IV BASURTO; and ANNE REEDER, Defendants/Appellees.

Not for Publication -Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CV2010-029521 The Honorable Edward O. Burke, Judge (Retired)

John P. Baker Appellant In Propria Persona Buckeye.

Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Paul E. Carter, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees Tucson.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge.

¶1 John P. Baker appeals the dismissal of his complaint against Arizona Department of Corrections ("ADOC") Deputy Warden Bradley, CO IV Basurto, and former Deputy Warden Anne Reeder. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In June 2008, Baker, a prison inmate, was threatened by other inmates. He requested protective segregation, and officials placed him in a detention unit. Baker was later transferred to a "super-maximum custody unit." Baker filed a grievance regarding his transfer and concomitant loss of privileges. Bradley, Basurto, and Reeder, among others, were involved with his grievances and appeals.

¶3 Before completing the grievance process, Baker filed a "civil rights" action ("Baker I") against the ADOC Director, Bradley, and Basurto ("Baker I Defendants"). The Baker I Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule"), and based on Baker's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. The Pima County Superior Court granted the motion, dismissing Baker's complaint with prejudice. Baker appealed.

¶4 On September 30, 2009, Division Two of this Court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Baker's state law claims but held that any federal claims alleged in Baker I should have been dismissed without prejudice. The mandate in Baker I issued on March 5, 2010.

¶5 In October 2010, Baker filed a new complaint challenging his 2008 transfer and asserting a violation of his federal constitutional rights. Basurto and Bradley waived service. Baker attempted to serve Reeder by mail but was informed she no longer worked for ADOC. Baker then filed a Motion for Deferral for Service by Publication, which the superior court granted. Reeder, though, was never served.

¶6 Basurto and Bradley moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging it was not timely filed under the savings statute and that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court granted the motion on several grounds, including the untimeliness of the complaint under the savings statute. Baker appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 Arizona's savings statute, A.R.S. ยง 12-504, provides, in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.