Michael Fortado v. Springerville Police Department, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedDecember 2, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-08231
StatusUnknown

This text of Michael Fortado v. Springerville Police Department, et al. (Michael Fortado v. Springerville Police Department, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Michael Fortado v. Springerville Police Department, et al., (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

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

9 Michael Fortado, No. CV-25-08231-PCT-JJT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Springerville Police Department, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 At issue is Defendants Town of Springerville, Dayson Merrill, William Gleeson, 16 Amy Sloane, Shelly Reidhead, and Tim Rasmussen’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Partial 17 Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Motion”) (Doc. 5). For the reasons set forth below, 18 the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion. 19 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, the time for a party to file a responsive memorandum is 20 fourteen days after service of the motion. The failure of a party to serve and file a 21 responsive memorandum “may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion 22 and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i); see also Brydges v. 23 Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 (9th Cir. 1994). Thirty-two days have passed since Defendants’ 24 Motion was filed on October 31, 2025, and Plaintiff has filed nothing. The Court will treat 25 Plaintiff’s silence as consent to the granting of Defendants’ Motion. 26 Accordingly, the Court will dismiss all claims against Springerville Police 27 Department and Round Valley Police Department because they are non-jural entitles not 28 capable of being sued separately. Gotbaum v. City of Phx., 617 F. Supp. 2d 878, 886 (D. 1 Ariz. 2008). (See Doc. 5 at 1 n.1.) The Court will also dismiss Counts One, Three, Four 2 and Five as to Defendants Town of Springerville, Dayson Merrill, William Gleeson, Amy 3 Sloane, Shelly Reidhead, and Tim Rasmussen. Lastly, the Court will dismiss Count Two 4 as to Defendants Dayson Merrill, William Gleeson, Amy Sloane, Shelly Reidhead, and 5 Tim Rasmussen. (See Doc. 5 at 13–14.) While Defendants broadly request that the 6 dismissal apply to “all individual Defendants” (id.), the Court recognizes that Dani 7 Goodman and Jennifer Lund—each of whom are named defendants—have not yet 8 appeared in this matter and are not represented by counsel who bring forth the present 9 Motion. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion as to Dani Goodman and Jennifer 10 Lund without prejudice. 11 It is possible that Plaintiff can cure the pleading defects as to those Defendants other 12 than the non-jural entities by amendment with additional, well-pled facts, so the Court will 13 grant Plaintiff leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). No 14 later than fourteen days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an amended 15 complaint and a separate Notice of Filing Amended Complaint with an attached redlined 16 copy showing the changes between the Complaint and the amendment. No new claims may 17 be added to an amendment absent leave of court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 15 and Local Rule 15.1. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint in the 19 time prescribed, the Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss Defendants Dayson Merrill, 20 William Gleeson, Amy Sloane, Shelly Reidhead, and Tim Rasmussen as parties to this 21 matter without further order of the Court. 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendants 23 Town of Springerville, Dayson Merrill, William Gleeson, Amy Sloane, Shelly Reidhead, 24 and Tim Rasmussen’s Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 5). 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice all claims against 26 Springerville Police Department and Round Valley Police Department. 27 . . . 28 . . . 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Counts One, Three, Four and Five as to □□ Defendants Town of Springerville, Dayson Merrill, William Gleeson, Amy Sloane, Shelly Reidhead, and Tim Rasmussen. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Count Two as to Defendants Dayson || Merrill, William Gleeson, Amy Sloane, Shelly Reidhead, and Tim Rasmussen. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants Town of Springerville, Dayson 7\| Merrill, William Gleeson, Amy Sloane, Shelly Reidhead, and Tim Rasmussen’s Motion 8 || for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 5) as to Defendants Dani Goodman and Jennifer Lund without prejudice. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff leave to amend the claims 11 |} dismissed above by this Order as to those Defendants other than the non-jural entities. No later than fourteen days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an amended 13 | complaint and a separate Notice of Filing Amended Complaint with an attached redlined □□ copy showing the changes between the Complaint and the amendment. No new claims may 15 || be added to an amendment absent leave of court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil || Procedure 15 and Local Rule 15.1. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to dismiss Defendants 18 |} Dayson Merrill, William Gleeson, Amy Sloane, Shelly Reidhead, and Tim Rasmussen as parties to this matter without further order of the Court if Plaintiff does not file an amended 20 || complaint in the time prescribed. 21 Dated this 2nd day of December, 2025. CN 22 “wok: 3 weffelee— Unifgd State#District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

-3-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gotbaum Ex Rel. Gotbaum v. City of Phoenix
617 F. Supp. 2d 878 (D. Arizona, 2008)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael Fortado v. Springerville Police Department, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-fortado-v-springerville-police-department-et-al-azd-2025.