Edwards v. Maricopa County Superior Court

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02296
• 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-25-02296-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Maricopa County Superior Court, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Stephen S. Edwards is attempting to sue the Maricopa County Superior 16 Court, Lakewood Community Association, the United States Department of Justice, and 17 former Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone.1 The court may sua sponte dismiss a 18 complaint when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 19 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Edwards’s complaint is dismissed. 20 Edwards appears to be suing over a dispute with his homeowners association— 21 Lakewood Community Association—that led to proceedings in state court. Dissatisfied 22 with the outcome in state court, Edwards filed this suit alleging the Maricopa County 23 Superior Court has “[a] deficient pattern of depravation” and the rulings against him were 24 a “Hate Crime.” (Doc. 1 at 3, 7.) Edwards further alleges Lakewood is “RACIST Morally,

25 1 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 him. See No. CV- 26 17-4661. In 2019, a district judge declared Edwards a vexatious litigant and prohibited him from filing any additional suits against particular defendants. Edwards v. PHH Mortg. 27 Corp., No. CV-18-04040-PHX-SPL, 2019 WL 1950304, at *5 (D. Ariz. Apr. 30, 2019), aff’d, 808 F. App’x 517 (9th Cir. 2020). Also in 2019, the Maricopa County Superior Court 28 declared Edwards a vexatious litigant and prohibited him from filing any new suit “without leave of the Civil Presiding Judge or his/her designee.” (Doc. 1 at 23.) || Legally bankrupt,” apparently as evidenced through Lakewood’s actions in the state court || proceedings. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Edwards names the Department of Justice as a defendant 3|| because he believes “[t]he Services of the DOJ should be referred to investigate the 4|| allegations of a hate crime.” (Doc. | at 7.) And Edwards names Penzone because the 5|| Sheriff’s Office’s “Foreclosure process” “depraves [sic] the HOA Foreclosure Victim and 6|| further victimizes the homeowner.” (Doc. | at 3.) These allegations qualify as frivolous. 7 Edwards was informed in one of his prior suits that he could not sue the Maricopa 8 || County Superior Court because it is a non-jural entity. Edwards v. Lakewood Cmty. Ass'n, No. CV-18-01934-PHX-JJT, 2018 WL 4953263, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 12, 2018). That 10 || remains true. Edwards cannot sue the United States Department of Justice absent a waiver 11 || of sovereign immunity, and he has not identified any such waiver. Balser v. Dep’t of Just., 12|| Off. of U.S. Tr., 327 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003). Edwards’s claims against Lakewood 13 || are based only on Lakewood’s pursuit of state-court litigation against Edwards. That is not 14|| sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. And there are no allegations establishing 15 || former Sheriff Penzone might be personally liable to Edwards based on the “foreclosure process” the Sheriff's Office allegedly follows. The complaint is dismissed without leave 17 || to amend. 18 IT IS ORDERED the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 19|| TO AMEND. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment a judgment of dismissal without 20 || prejudice and close this case. 21 Dated this 7th day of July, 2025. 22

AA ADEA TEV UC Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28

_2-