From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fox v. Goddard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Aug 22, 2011
No. CV-11-00595-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz. Aug. 22, 2011)

Opinion

No. CV-11-00595-PHX-NVW

08-22-2011

Joel Fox, Plaintiff, v. Samuel P. Goddard III, in his personal capacity; Donald Conrad, in his personal capacity; Todd Lawson, in his personal capacity; Michael Edwards, in his personal capacity, Defendants.


ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Samuel P. Goddard III's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 30). Plaintiff's complaint alleges three counts for violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and the Stored Communications Act related to an allegedly unlawful search and seizure of Plaintiff's home and email accounts. Defendant contends that Plaintiff's claims fail because (1) Count One is barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, and fails to state a plausible claim for relief, (2) Count Two is barred for failing to plead membership in a suspect class, and (3) 18 U.S.C. § 2707(e) provides a complete defense to Count Three. Although Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion was due August 15, 2011, see LRCiv. 7.2(c), no response has been filed.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is assessed under the standard applicable to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980). The Court previously granted the motions to dismiss filed by the other three defendants named in this action (Doc. 29). Although Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's motion, which is cause to grant the motion, see LRCiv. 7.2(i), the Court grants the motion on its merits for the reasons stated in Defendant's motion and the reasons stated in the Court's previous order granting Defendants Lawson, Conrad, and Edwards's Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 29).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Samuel P. Goddard Ill's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 30) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enterjudgment dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) with prejudice as to all Defendants. The Clerk shall terminate the case.

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Fox v. Goddard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Aug 22, 2011
No. CV-11-00595-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz. Aug. 22, 2011)
Case details for

Fox v. Goddard

Case Details

Full title:Joel Fox, Plaintiff, v. Samuel P. Goddard III, in his personal capacity…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Aug 22, 2011

Citations

No. CV-11-00595-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz. Aug. 22, 2011)