United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
DOMINIC W. LANZA UNITED SLATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Defendants
City of Flagstaff and Melanie Montano have moved for judgment
on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c). (Doc. 14.) At the
request of the Court (Doc. 46), the parties provided
supplemental briefing regarding whether Defendants are
entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim, and
if so, how to resolve the remaining state-law claims. (Docs.
51, 52.) For the reasons below, the Court will grant
Defendants' motion with regard to the § 1983 claim,
will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state-law claims, and thus will remand those claims
to the Coconino County Superior Court.
BACKGROUND
Defendant
City of Flagstaff is a municipal corporation organized under
the laws of the State of Arizona. (Doc. 1-1 at Ex. A ¶
2.) Defendant Melanie Montano (“Officer Montano”)
was employed by the City of Flagstaff as a police officer
during all times relevant to the complaint. (Id.
¶ 3.) Plaintiff Carly Denial was a resident of the City
of Flagstaff during all times relevant to the complaint.
(Id. ¶ 1.) The relevant facts as alleged by
Plaintiff are as follows.
On
February 6, 2017, Officer Montano responded to an alleged
shoplifting incident at Sportsman's Warehouse in
Flagstaff. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.) Sportsman's
Warehouse advised Officer Montano that two individuals had
stolen merchandise totaling nearly $800. (Id. ¶
9.) Officer Montano arrested both individuals: Josh Kieffer
and Plaintiff's sister, Nicole Renee Denial
(“Nicole”). (Id. ¶¶ 8, 13.)
Officer
Montano identified Josh Kieffer using documentary evidence
issued by the State of Arizona. (Id. ¶10.)
However, Nicole was unable to produce any evidence of her
identity. (Id. ¶ 11.) Nicole falsely identified
herself as Plaintiff, Carly Denial. (Id.
¶¶ 12, 13.) Officer Montano accepted Nicole's
representation that she was Plaintiff based solely upon her
verbal statement of identity. (Id. ¶ 11.)
Officer Montano did not request any documentation from Nicole
regarding her identity, even after Officer Montano
accompanied Nicole to her residence. (Id. ¶
14.)
After
reading Nicole her Miranda rights, Officer Montano
ran a search to determine whether there were any other
arrests or outstanding warrants for “Carly
Denial.” (Id. ¶ 15.) Finding none,
Officer Montano issued a citation to Nicole, which included
Plaintiff's social security and driver's license
numbers. (Id. ¶ 16.) Officer Montano then
released Nicole after she signed the citation issued in
Plaintiff Carly Denial's name, promising that she would
appear in court. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.)
On May
11, 2017, the Arizona Department of Public Safety pulled over
Plaintiff on Interstate Highway 17 for a traffic violation.
(Id. ¶ 21.) The officer discovered that an
outstanding arrest warrant had been issued for Plaintiff for
her failure to appear in court relating to the incident at
Sportsman's Warehouse. (Id.) The officer placed
Plaintiff under arrest and took her to the Fourth Avenue
Jail. (Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff was released the
next day, having spent approximately twelve hours in the
jail's custody. (Id.)
On
November 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of claim with the
City of Flagstaff and Officer Montano. (Doc. 14-1 at Ex. 3;
Doc. 1-1 at Ex. A ¶ 30.)
On
February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed suit in the Coconino
County Superior Court. (Doc. 1-1 at Ex. A.) The complaint
alleges four counts: (1) gross negligence; (2) a violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) intentional infliction of
emotional distress; and (4) instigating or participating in
unlawful arrest. (Id.)
On
March 23, 2018, Defendants removed this action to federal
court. (Doc. 1.)
On
April 3, 2018, Defendants filed their answer. (Doc. 7.) It
alleges several affirmative defenses, including qualified
immunity. (Doc. 7 at 8.)
On May
7, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings on all four counts. (Doc. 14.)
On
November 16, 2018, the Court ordered the parties to submit
supplemental briefing on two issues: (1) whether the §
1983 claim should be dismissed with prejudice because
Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; and (2)
whether, in the event of a dismissal of the § 1983
claim, the remaining state-law ...