Harvey v. Banner Health

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00592
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 John Clayton Harvey, No. CV-25-00592-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Banner Health,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff John Clayton Harvey’s amended complaint alleges defendant Banner 16 Health impermissibly injected him with “mind disabling drugs” and then “conspired 17 against [him] to stop his pursuit of justice” in previous cases Harvey filed against Banner 18 Health. (Doc. 12 at 4.) The claims Harvey is attempting to litigate in the present suit were 19 dismissed with prejudice by the Maricopa County Superior Court. Arizona law regarding 20 claim preclusion means the present suit must be dismissed. 21 Harvey’s complaint does not provide a clear explanation of the factual background 22 for his claims, but Banner Health states Harvey “was involuntarily committed at a Banner 23 Health hospital on two occasions in June 2020 and May 2022.” (Doc. 48 at 2.) That does 24 not appear to be entirely accurate as there is evidence of interactions between Harvey and 25 Banner Health in March 2019. But whatever the exact dates, Harvey has filed repetitive 26 suits against Banner Health and associated individuals. The following background is based 27 on Banner Health’s motion to dismiss and publicly-available records from Harvey’s many 28 suits. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth. v. City of Burbank, 136 F.3d 1360, 1364 1 (9th Cir. 1998) (taking judicial notice of records in state court litigation). 2 On May 11, 2022, Harvey filed in Maricopa County Superior Court a suit against 3 Neeraj K. Vij, an individual associated with Banner Health. See Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct., 4 CV2022-092003. On May 16, 2022, Harvey filed a separate suit also in Maricopa County 5 Superior Court against Banner Health. See Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct., CV2022-092086. 6 That suit asserted a “medical malpractice claim.” D. Ariz. No. CV-22-846, Doc. 7 at 1. The 7 next day, May 17, 2022, Harvey filed two suits in the District of Arizona, one against 8 Banner Health and one against Neeraj K. Vij. D. Ariz. Nos. CV-22-846; CV-22-847. These 9 four suits all seem to have stemmed from the same events. According to one of the federal 10 complaints, on March 20, 2019, Harvey “was complaining of the effects of medical 11 marijuana” when he was taken to a Banner Health hospital and improperly injected with 12 “morphine, psychotropic [sic], and drugs.” D. Ariz. No. CV-22-846, Doc. 1. The state court 13 suits were dismissed after Harvey failed to respond to motions to dismiss. The federal suits 14 were dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. 15 On December 29, 2022—a few months after his federal suits were dismissed— 16 Harvey filed another case in the District of Arizona against Banner Health. D. Ariz. No. 17 CV-22-2192. That complaint alleged that on May 26, 2022, Harvey was “force injected 18 many times with mind altering drugs.” D. Ariz. No. CV-22-2192, Doc. 1 at 4. In September 19 2023, that suit was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. D. Ariz. No. CV-22- 20 2192, Doc. 31. 21 On October 5, 2023, Harvey filed another case in Maricopa County Superior Court 22 against Banner Health. (Doc. 48-1 at 2.) The complaint in that case alleged Harvey had 23 been “injected with drugs,” presumably in March 2019, and “again in late May of 2022.” 24 (Doc. 48-1 at 3.) Harvey alleged those injections occurred after Banner Health was “served 25 with Summons and Complaint[s]” from Harvey’s previous cases. (Doc. 48-1 at 3.) Banner 26 Health moved to dismiss and on May 1, 2024, the state court dismissed the complaint. 27 (Doc. 48-1 at 7.) The state court later entered a judgment of dismissal with prejudice. (Doc. 28 48-1 at 11.) Harvey filed a notice of appeal but did not keep his address updated so the mail 1 was returned to the superior court. It is unclear whether the appeal remains pending. 2 On May 15, 2024, Harvey filed the present case against Banner Health in the District 3 of Nevada. The operative complaint alleges Banner Health “forced injections of mind 4 disabling drugs” and then “conspired and acted against [Harvey] to stop his pursuit of 5 justice” in two prior federal suits, CV-22-846 and CV-22-847. (Doc. 12 at 4.) The District 6 of Nevada transferred the case to this court and Banner Health filed a motion to dismiss. 7 (Doc. 40, 48.) 8 Banner Health’s sole argument for dismissal is that Harvey’s current claims are 9 barred by res judicata. (Doc. 48.) Banner Health relies on the state court case that was 10 dismissed with prejudice on May 1, 2024, and argues “[t]he parties and claims are 11 identical” between that suit and this one, and the state court suit ended with a judgment on 12 the merits in favor of Banner Health. (Doc. 48 at 3.) Harvey’s opposition to the motion to 13 dismiss argues the present suit is based on Banner Health “stop[ing] the lawsuits” he filed 14 in May 2022. (Doc. 49 at 2.) Harvey also argues Banner Health “stopped” him from 15 pursuing “legal action concerning his brother and nephew,” although it is not clear what 16 Harvey is referencing. (Doc. 49 at 3.) Harvey states his brother and nephew were 17 hypnotized in Michigan, and his brother died while Banner Health “had [Harvey].” (Doc. 18 49 at 4.) But again, it is not clear what connection these events have to the present suit and 19 they are not mentioned in the operative complaint. 20 “[F]ederal courts [must] apply the res judicata rules of a particular state to 21 judgments issued by courts of that state.” Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 322 22 (9th Cir. 1988). Banner Health argues the judgment by the Maricopa County Superior 23 Court issued in 2024 precludes this suit. It is therefore Arizona law that must be applied. 24 Under Arizona law, “a party seeking to invoke the doctrine [of res judicata] must establish 25 (1) an identity of claims in the suit in which a judgment was entered and the current 26 litigation, (2) a final judgment on the merits in the previous litigation, and (3) identity or 27 privity between parties in the two suits.” Lawrence T. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 438 P.3d 28 259, 261–62 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). The state court case dismissed with prejudice in May 1 || 2024 involved the same claims by Harvey against Banner Health as the present suit. And the state court entered a final judgment on the merits against Harvey. See Roden v. Roden, 243 P. 413, 415 (Ariz. 1926) (“A judgment of dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is the same as a 4|| judgment for defendant upon the merits, and, of course, is res judicata as to every matter || litigated.”). The elements of res judicata are met and Harvey cannot pursue his claims.! 6 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 48) is GRANTED. The Clerk of || Court shall enter judgment in favor of defendant and close this case. 8 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2025. 9 10 ly Vo AY. \ G. / .

Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7 ' It is possible that Harvey’s appeal of the 2024 judgment is still pending in the Arizona Cour of Appeals. That does not impact the analysis because Arizona has adopted the rule “that an appeal from a judgment does not suspend the effect of the judgment as res judicata 28! between the parties.” Arizona Downs v. Superior Ct. of Arizona, Maricopa Cnty., 623 P.2d 1229, 1232 (Ariz. 1981). -4-