Edwards v. Coury

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01964
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Stephen S Edwards, No. CV-25-01964-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Christopher A Coury, Maricopa County Superior Court, United States Department of 13 Justice, and Unknown Parties,

14 Defendants. 15 16 On June 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against the four 17 Defendants listed above. Since then, Plaintiff has filed three motions. 18 This court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint when it “lacks an arguable basis 19 either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Applied to this 20 case, even though Plaintiff paid the filing fee, the Court retains the ability to sua sponte 21 dismiss a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Wong v. Bell, 642 22 F.2d 359, 361–62 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and 23 Procedure § 1357 at 593 (1969)). Such a dismissal may be made without prior notice where 24 the claimant cannot possibly win relief. See Wong, 642 F.2d at 362. See also Franklin v. 25 Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A paid complaint that is ‘obviously 26 frivolous’ does not confer subject matter jurisdiction”). 27 As another Judge in this district recently recounted about Plaintiff: 28 This is Edwards’s twenty-fourth lawsuit in this court. After some of his suits were dismissed, Edwards attempted to sue the judges who had ruled against 1 him. See No. CV 17-4661. In 2019, a district judge declared Edwards a vexatious litigant and prohibited him from filing any additional suits against 2 particular defendants. Edwards v. PHH Mortg. Corp., No. CV-18-04040- PHX-SPL, 2019 WL 1950304, at *5 (D. Ariz. Apr. 30, 2019), aff’d, 808 F. 3 App’x 517 (9th Cir. 2020). Also in 2019, the Maricopa County Superior Court declared Edwards a vexatious litigant and prohibited him from filing 4 any new suit “without leave of the Civil Presiding Judge or his/her designee.” 5 (Doc. 1 at 23.). Edwards v. Maricopa County Superior Court, CV 25-2296-PHX-KML n.1 (D. Ariz. July 6 7, 2025) (a copy of the superior court order is attached to Doc. 8 in this case). 7 In this twenty-fifth lawsuit, Plaintiff sues the Maricopa County Superior Court 8 (although he later acknowledged it is not a proper Defendant), Maricopa County Superior 9 Court Judge Christopher Coury, the United States Department of Justice, and certain 10 fictitious parties. The Court will dismiss this case for failure to state a claim without leave 11 to amend. 12 The Maricopa County Superior Court will be dismissed because it is not a jural 13 entity that can sue and be sued. Id. citing Edwards v. Lakewood Cmty. Ass’n, No. CV-18- 14 01934-PHX-JJT, 2018 WL 4953263, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 12, 2018). This defect cannot be 15 cured by amendment. 16 The federal courts do not permit the use of fictitious defendants as mere 17 placeholders. Ivan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CV 12-1065-PHX-JAT, 2012 WL 3095050, 18 at *2 (D. Ariz. July 30, 2012) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)); see also Craig v. U.S., 413 19 F.2d 854, 856 (9th Cir. 1969); see also Indian Hills Holdings, LLC v. Frye, No. 3:20-cv- 20 00461-BEN-AHG, 2021 WL 1139419, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2021) (noting that 21 “[u]nlike California code pleading,” the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “neither 22 authorize nor prohibit the use of fictitious parties; however, FRCP 10 does require a 23 plaintiff to include the names of all parties in his complaint.”). This failure to comply with 24 Rule 10 can only be cured by dismissal of these non-named parties. 25 The United States Department of Justice cannot be sued without a waiver of 26 sovereign immunity, which Plaintiff has not alleged. Balser v. Dep’t of Just., Off. of U.S. 27 Tr., 327 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, Plaintiff does not allege the Department 28 1 of Justice has taken any action with respect to him. Instead, he names the United States 2 Department of Justice but claims only that United States Department of Justice resources 3 may be required to investigate Plaintiff’s allegations. Such a request for action by the 4 United States Department of Justice does not state a claim against the United States 5 Department of Justice. Further, Plaintiff cannot cure by amendment because this Court 6 cannot control the United States Department of Justice’s resources nor direct its 7 investigations.1 8 Finally, as stated in the amended complaint (Doc. 8), Defendant Coury is a 9 Maricopa County Superior Court Judge. Plaintiff sues Defendant Coury for actions he 10 allegedly took in his capacity as a Judge. “Judges and those performing judge-like 11 functions are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts performed in their official 12 capacities.” Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). An act by a judge is 13 a “judicial” act when “it is a function normally performed by a judge,” and when the parties 14 at issue have “dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 15 349, 362 (1978). Notably, judicial immunity applies even to alleged acts of conspiracy or 16 bribery. Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1078. 17 Here, all actions alleged to have been taken by Judge Coury with respect to Plaintiff 18 were in his capacity as a Judge. (See Doc. 8). Therefore, Defendant Coury is absolutely 19 immune from liability in this lawsuit and this result cannot be cured by amendment. 20 Accordingly, 21 IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the 22 Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 1 See https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational- 28 activities/first-amendment-activities/us-v-alvarez/separation-powers-action-us-v-alvarez (explaining separation of powers) (last visited July 28, 2025). 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot. 2 Dated this 29th day of July, 2025. 3 4 ' ° □ James A. CO 6 Senior United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-