Nancy L Knight v. County of Mohave, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-08079
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Nancy L Knight, No. CV-25-08079-PCT-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 County of Mohave, et al.,

13 Defendants.

14 On April 15, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Nancy L. Knight (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint 15 against multiple Defendants alleging various violations of her constitutional rights. 16 (Doc. 1). On May 12, 2025, she filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 12), and on May 17 21, 2025, and again on June 23, 2025, sought leave to amend her First Amended Complaint 18 (Docs. 14 & 29).1 On July 23, 2025, Defendants County of Mohave, Steven C. Moss, Ryan 19 Esplin, Jeffrey Haws, and Christine Ballard (collectively, “County Defendants”) moved to 20 dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 40). The same day, Defendants Dale P. 21 Nielson, Lee Jantzen, Derek Carlisle, John Napper, and Steven C. Moss (collectively, 22 “State Defendants”) also sought dismissal of the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 42). 23 Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 47) to County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss that is 24 construed as a response to State Defendants’ Motion as well, given that the Response 25 references State Defendants’ Motion. (See id. at 2–3). State and County Defendants have 26 each filed a Reply. (Docs. 48 & 49). 27

28 1 All of these motions have been fully briefed. (See Docs. 19, 20, 21; 33, 36, 37). 1 Because the Motions to Dismiss raise jurisdictional issues, the Court will address 2 them first. 3 I. The FAC’s Allegations 4 Plaintiff’s FAC is not a model of clarity, but from what can be discerned, Plaintiff’s 5 claims arise from grievances with various state court proceedings. Plaintiff’s state court 6 cases originate from zoning decisions that were made about her property and the properties 7 of other nearby landowners. (See Doc. 12 at ¶¶ 17–25). Based on the alleged zoning and 8 permitting issues, Plaintiff filed several civil actions in state court, including “CV 2025- 9 00044” and “CV 2018-04003.” (Id. at ¶¶ 13, 26). Plaintiff claims that her First, Fifth, and 10 Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated during these proceedings and that she faced 11 discrimination. (Id. at 3). The FAC alleges that various actors engaged in improper 12 behavior throughout her state court cases. (See generally id. at ¶¶ 24–50). Specifically, 13 Plaintiff alleges: 14 • Defendant Judge Lee Jantzen “violated Plaintiff’s first amendment right to 15 free speech by imposing a Gag Order;” “denied Plaintiff’s Motion for equal 16 treatment;” “declared Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant for filing a Rule 60 17 Motion in her attempt to reverse Judge Carlisle’s award of attorney fees;” 18 “failed to follow case law for the movant on abandonment to join Rule 19 19 parties;” “filed his Rule 19 order as a Rule 54 (b);” “denied Plaintiff’s 20 dispositive motion on the abandonment claim;” “recused himself after 21 Plaintiff filed a Rule 42.2 Affidavit of eight counts of bias;” and “never 22 provided Plaintiff with a signed Notice to Property Owners for inclusion in 23 the Service Packet” (id. at ¶¶ 13, 16, 32–35, 41); 24 • Defendant Judge Dale Nielson “violated Plaintiff’s first amendment right to 25 free speech by imposing a Gag Order;” “ordered Plaintiff to sue Rule 19 26 parties when she had no grounds to do so;” “violated Plaintiff’s 14th 27 amendment right to due process when he held her in Contempt;” “violated 28 Plaintiff’s legal rights by not requiring attorney Oehler’s defendants to state 1 a claim for which relief could be granted…for their affirmative defense of 2 abandonment;” “failed to follow case law for the movant on abandonment to 3 join Rule 19 parties;” “[violated] Rule 91 failure to respond to Plaintiff’s 4 action for him to tell her what grounds he expected her to sue the Rule 19 5 parties for;” and “[violated] his Arizona Constitutional duty to respond to 6 actions, motions, etc. within 60 days” (id. at ¶¶ 13–14, 31–32, 47–48); 7 • Defendant Judge Derek Carlisle “ordered Plaintiff to pay attorney fees for a 8 Motion to Compel her to sign a Written Agreement that violated the terms of 9 the mediated Settlement Agreement” (id. at ¶ 15); 10 • Defendant Judge John Napper “condemned the Plaintiff without evidence for 11 dismissal of eight defendants;” and “should have required attorney Elias to 12 produce the Order issued by Judge Jantzen prior to December 27, 2021” (id. 13 at ¶¶ 37, 39); 14 • Defendant Judge Steven Moss “is a defendant for the impropriety of 15 assigning Judge Nielson to the 2018 case…and had recused himself for the 16 Change of Venue assignment to Yavapai County” (id. at ¶ 50); 17 • Defendant Mohave County “discriminates on where to publish hearings in 18 the region affected that violates Statute §39-204 (C)(3);” “deprived Plaintiff 19 of Notice in the Mohave Daily News for Res. 2016-04;” “did not require a 20 permit from Plaintiff’s adjacent neighbor who had…extended the height of 21 the cement block side yard return;” and is liable “as the Respondeat Superior 22 for their attorney’s behaviors” (id. at ¶¶ 18, 22, 43); 23 • Defendant Christine Ballard “participated in zoning fraud in 1998 claiming 24 Parcel VV was Agricultural land that led to Plaintiff’s Tract 4163 Real 25 Property damage” (id. at ¶ 19); 26 • Defendant Nick Hont “approved the misappropriation of General Fund tax 27 dollars expended for Developer Azarmi’s proposal to reduce setbacks in 28 Plaintiff’s entire Desert Lakes Subdivision Tract 4076 with Res. 2016-125” 1 and “claimed the permit issued to Plaintiff’s adjacent neighbor, Chase, for 2 his personal use…was sound and no permit was required” (id. at ¶¶ 20–21); 3 • Defendant Steven Moss, acting as County Supervisor, “claimed Plaintiff 4 needed to prove ownership with a Survey that cost her $1400;” “claimed the 5 ‘Leaning Tower of Pisa is still standing;’” and “recommended Attorney 6 Lenkowsky who was later found to be in collusion with the adjacent 7 neighbor’s defense counsel Oehler” (id. at ¶¶ 24, 27–28); and 8 • Defendants Jeffrey Haws and Ryan Esplin “are charged with claiming time- 9 barring with no evidence” and “claim Ord. 37.C.4 circumvents Res. 93-122 10 in defiance of the language in the Board of Supervisor’s dismissal of Res. 11 2016-125” (id. at ¶¶ 42, 45). 12 Due to these alleged wrongs, Plaintiff is seeking the reversal of multiple state court 13 decisions, declaratory relief, money damages, and punitive damages. (See id. at ¶¶ 51–70). 14 II. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss 15 Defendants2 have each moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 16 (“FAC”) on the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and 17 that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief. (See Docs. 40, 42). 18 A. Standard of Review 19 A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) challenges the subject matter jurisdiction 20 of the court. See Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 21 2003). A jurisdictional attack can be facial or factual. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 22 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). Facial attacks assert that “the allegations contained in a 23 complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Id. “By contrast, 24 in a factual attack, the challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, 25 would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction.” Id. With a factual attack, a court may review 26 evidence beyond the complaint without converting the motion into one for summary 27 judgment, and it “need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiffs’ allegations.” White

28 2 References to “Defendants,” without further specification, mean both the County and State Defendants. 1 v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). The plaintiff must show that the court in 2 question has jurisdiction to hear their case. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 3 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A court must dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint if it fails to establish 4 subject matter jurisdiction. Savage, 343 F.3d at 1039 n.2. 5 A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim. 6 Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011). Complaints must make a short and 7 plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief for its claims. 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This standard does not require “‘detailed factual allegations,’ but 9 it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” 10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 11 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to “raise a right to relief above 12 the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint must “state a claim to relief 13 that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff 14 pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 15 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Determining 16 whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task 17 that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” 18 Id. at 679. 19 Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim may be based on either the “lack 20 of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable 21 legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In 22 reviewing a motion to dismiss, courts will “accept factual allegations in the complaint as 23 true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” 24 Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). But 25 courts are not required “to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” 26 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). 27 B. Discussion 28 As an initial matter, State Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of 1 pertinent filings from Plaintiff’s related state court proceedings. (See Doc. 42-1 at 3–6). 2 The supporting Declaration verifies that the documents are not subject to reasonable 3 dispute as they are part of official court records. (Id. at 5–6; see also Docs. 42-1–3 4 (“Attachments 1–15”)). It is appropriate for this Court to take judicial notice of State 5 Defendants’ Attachments because “federal courts may take judicial notice of other courts’ 6 proceedings, within the federal judiciary and without, if the proceedings directly relate to 7 matters before the court.” Hayes v. Woodford, 444 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1137 (S.D. Cal. 8 2006), aff’d, 276 Fed. Appx. 576 (9th Cir. 2008) (unpublished). Additionally, State 9 Defendants have raised a factual attack under Rule 12(b)(1), so the Court may evaluate 10 matters beyond the FAC. See Safe Air, 373 F.3d at 1039. 11 1. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine 12 Defendants first argue that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman 13 doctrine because they are nothing more than attempts to reverse various state court 14 judgments. (Doc. 40 at 4–5; Doc. 42 at 7–9). The Court agrees. 15 Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “a federal district court does not have subject 16 matter jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the final judgment of a state court.” Noel 17 v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). “If a plaintiff brings a de facto appeal from 18 a state court judgment, Rooker-Feldman requires that the district court dismiss the suit for 19 lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th 20 Cir. 2004). Rooker-Feldman applies when a federal plaintiff claims the state court’s legal 21 errors as their injury and seeks relief from a state court judgment as their remedy. Id. at 22 1140. 23 Here, Plaintiff’s requested relief primarily concerns prior state court actions and 24 orders. (See Doc. 12 at ¶¶ 51–70). For example, Plaintiff requests that the Court declare 25 that an attorney fees award is a “Void Order” and “[d]eclare that all defendant judges 26 named in this case abused discretion and/or abused power against the Plaintiff.” (Id. at 27 ¶¶ 57, 67). These requests, and all similar ones, are clearly barred under Rooker-Feldman. 28 In Response, Plaintiff argues that any state court judgment was entered in error. (Doc. 47 1 at 3). Such claims are clearly precluded by Rooker-Feldman. Henrichs v. Valley View 2 Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 613 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The clearest case for dismissal based on the 3 Rooker–Feldman doctrine occurs when ‘a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an 4 allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment 5 based on that decision....’”) (quoting Noel, 341 F.3d at 1164). To the extent Plaintiff claims 6 error in the state court proceedings, her relief lies in an appeal to a higher state court, not 7 with a federal district court. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1154. Because Plaintiff’s FAC seeks to 8 reverse or alter rulings in her state court cases, it is dismissed as the Court lacks subject 9 matter jurisdiction to review the state court’s decisions. 10 2. Younger Abstention 11 The FAC also references ongoing state judicial proceedings. (See e.g., Doc. 12 at 2 12 (“CV 2025-00044 was dismissed that is being Appealed for multiple errors of assumption 13 by Hon. Senior Commissioner Campagnolo.”)). Based on this allegation, County 14 Defendants argue that the Court should apply Younger abstention. (Doc. 40 at 5–6). 15 Plaintiff does not respond to this argument. (See Doc. 47). 16 Younger abstention is based on a strong policy against federal courts interfering with 17 pending state judicial proceedings. See Yelp Inc. v. Paxton, 137 F.4th 944, 950 (9th Cir. 18 2025). In civil cases, “Younger abstention is appropriate only when the state proceedings: 19 (1) are ongoing, (2) are quasi-criminal enforcement actions or involve a state’s interest in 20 enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts, (3) implicate an important state interest, 21 and (4) allow litigants to raise federal challenges.” ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State 22 Compen. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 759 (9th Cir. 2014). 23 All four circumstances are present here. First, Plaintiff identifies two state court 24 cases in her FAC—CV 2018 04003 and CV 2025 00044—and indicates that at least CV 25 2025-00044 is ongoing. (Id.). Nichols v. Brown, 945 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1097 (C.D. Cal. 26 2013) (“[A] state proceeding is deemed “pending” for the purposes of Younger abstention 27 until state appellate remedies are exhausted.”). 28 Second, Plaintiff’s state court actions involve the state’s interest in enforcing the 1 orders and judgments. From what can be discerned, Plaintiff’s underlying state court 2 claims involved issues of state law, and the decisions or orders rendered, in those cases, 3 applied state statutes and procedures. (See, e.g., Doc. 12 at ¶¶ 18–25 (discussing various 4 state laws or local zoning ordinances); id. at ¶ 30 (discussing “Vexatious Litigant 5 proceedings”); id. at ¶¶ 32–34 (discussing state court judge’s application of Ariz. R. Civ. 6 P. 19)). Based on the FAC, a final judgment was reached in CV 2025-00044 and is now 7 on appeal. (Id. at 2). Consequently, “[a]ny relief that could be granted by the district court 8 would directly impact [the state’s] interest in protecting the authority of its judicial system, 9 as the relief would necessarily be predicated on a determination that [the state judge’s] 10 ruling was wrongly decided.” Gray v. Pagano, 287 Fed. Appx. 155, 157 (3d Cir. 2008) 11 (unpublished). 12 Third, the Court must consider whether an important state interest is implicated. 13 “The importance of the interest is measured by considering its significance broadly, rather 14 than by focusing on the state’s interest in the resolution of an individual case.” Baffert v. 15 California Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 618 (9th Cir. 2003). Although the FAC is 16 hard to follow, Plaintiff asks the Court to nullify state court orders, including orders 17 declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, holding Plaintiff in contempt, and assessing attorney 18 fees against Plaintiff. “A State’s interest in the contempt process, through which it 19 vindicates the regular operation of its judicial system…is surely an important interest.” 20 Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 335 (1977). Moreover, Plaintiff asks the Court to reverse 21 the same judgments that are currently on appeal. When “the relief sought in this case would 22 so clearly interfere with the pending state court action,” such a consequence “outweighs 23 the impact of any alleged governmental actions in connection with the application of the 24 zoning and land use laws.” Endeavor House, Inc. v. City of South Amboy, 2006 WL 25 1791213, *4 (D. N.J. 2006). Given the state’s interest in the administration of state court 26 dockets and maintaining its judicial system’s authority, the third factor has been met. 27 Fourth, nothing precludes Plaintiff from raising federal challenges in her state 28 proceedings. 1 Plaintiff has not alleged or argued that any exception to Younger abstention applies 2 here. Therefore, the Court will also abstain from interfering in Plaintiff’s ongoing state 3 proceedings under Younger principles. 4 3. Eleventh Amendment and Judicial Immunity 5 State Defendants argue that because Plaintiff sued state judges in their official 6 capacities for actions taken as Arizona Superior Court agents both Eleventh Amendment 7 and judicial immunity bar Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 42 at 9–13). Plaintiff does not 8 specifically address State Defendants’ immunity arguments. (See generally Doc. 47). The 9 Court finds that the individual State Defendants enjoy immunity as superior court judges 10 “[A] federal court generally may not hear a suit brought by any person against a 11 nonconsenting State.” Munoz v. Super. Ct. of Los Angeles Cnty., 91 F.4th 977, 980 (9th 12 Cir. 2024). This prohibition, under the Eleventh Amendment, applies when the state or an 13 arm of the state is a named defendant. Id. Here, Plaintiff has brought suit against five 14 Arizona Superior Court judges for the decisions they rendered in their official capacities. 15 (See, e.g., ¶¶ 57–61). The State has not consented to be sued in federal court, and no 16 exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to these circumstances. In 17 consequence, “Plaintiff cannot state a claim against [Arizona Superior Courts] (or its 18 employees), because such suits are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.” Simmons v. 19 Sacramento Cnty. Super. Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003). 20 Furthermore, “[a]bsolute immunity is generally accorded to judges and prosecutors 21 functioning in their official capacities.” Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 22 922 (9th Cir. 2004). “Judicial immunity applies ‘however erroneous the act may have 23 been, and however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff.’” 24 Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 25 U.S. 193, 199-200 (1985)). However, a judge lacks immunity when they act absent any 26 jurisdiction or perform a non-judicial act. See id. 27 State Defendants argue that the complained actions by the judges were all judicial 28 acts taken in their official capacities and provide the relevant court records from Plaintiff’s 1 state court proceedings. (See Doc. 42 at 12–13). The State Defendants’ alleged actions, 2 such as dismissing cases, transferring cases, awarding attorney fees, are normal judicial 3 functions. See Lund v. Cowan, 5 F.4th 964, 971 (9th Cir. 2021). Even construing the FAC 4 favorably to Plaintiff, allegations of improper motives or constitutional rights violations do 5 not defeat judicial immunity. See Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1078; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 6 U.S. 349, 359 (1978). Finally, the Arizona Superior Courts are courts of general 7 jurisdiction, State ex rel. Neely v. Brown, 864 P.2d 1038, 1040 (Ariz. 1993), and the 8 Arizona Constitution imparts original jurisdiction in the superior courts to hear the claims 9 brought by Plaintiff. See Ariz. Const. art. VI § 14(2-3). Thus, the State Defendants acted 10 within their jurisdiction, and any remaining claims against the State Defendants are barred 11 by judicial immunity in addition to Eleventh Amendment immunity. All claims against 12 the State Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. 13 4. Failure to State a Claim 14 To the extent any of Plaintiff’s claims are not barred under Rooker-Feldman, 15 Younger and/or by judicial immunity or Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Court agrees 16 with County Defendants that Plaintiff’s claims fail under Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. 40 at 7). 17 Any remaining claims that Plaintiff intended to bring that are not already dismissed 18 by the foregoing conclusions are not adequately pled. First, the FAC fails to identify claims 19 or allege any elements of a particular claim. The constitutional violations alleged are 20 mainly in reference to the Defendant Judges and are therefore barred as stated. Otherwise, 21 throughout the FAC, Plaintiff mentions “zoning fraud” (id. at ¶¶ 19, 49); suffering stress 22 (id. at ¶ 21, 29); “defamation” (id. at ¶ 30); “breach of professional duty” (id. at ¶ 42); 23 “malicious concealment” (id.); the Arizona Tort Claims Act (id. at ¶ 43); and “U.S. Title 24 42, Section 1983” (id. at ¶ 46). However, claims for any such violation or under the 25 mentioned authority are not clearly alleged. 26 For example, Plaintiff states that Defendant Ballard participated in “zoning fraud” 27 and that the “[f]raud produced stress,” but she does not establish vital elements of a fraud 28 claim under Arizona law, such as the statement’s falsity or her reliance on it. (Id. at 19). 1 See Enyart v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 985 P.2d 556, 562 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998) (listing a 2 fraud claim’s elements under Arizona law). On certain subjects understood to raise a high 3 risk of abusive litigation, a plaintiff must state factual allegations with greater particularity 4 than Rule 8 requires. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 569 (citing Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 9(b)-(c)). 5 Plaintiff’s allegations fall far below this standard. 6 Plaintiff’s other potential tort claims fail for the same reasons. For example, 7 Plaintiff references “discrimination” and a “civil rights violation” but fails to allege 8 protected class membership or any other element of a discrimination claim. (Id. at 2). 9 Moreover, Plaintiff fails to allege a deprivation of constitutional rights, other than her 10 conclusory claims about the State Defendants, and therefore she does not state a claim 11 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Long v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) 12 (stating the required elements of a § 1983 claim). 13 Plaintiff’s claims against Mohave County are insufficient under § 1983. Id. (“A 14 municipality may not be sued under § 1983 solely because an injury was inflicted by its 15 employees or agents[.]”). Plaintiff does not establish a Monell claim against the County 16 because, at best, she claims that the County “discriminates on where to publish hearings” 17 depriving Plaintiff “of Notice in the Mohave Daily News for Res. 2016-04” and its attorney 18 committed “malicious concealment.” (Doc. 12 at ¶¶ 18, 42). However, neither of these 19 allegations, nor any others, constitute a policy, practice, or custom that is the driving force 20 behind a constitutional violation. See Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th 21 Cir. 2011). Likewise, Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against any individual County 22 Defendant precludes any respondeat superior claim against the County. Finally, Plaintiff 23 does not have a property interest in a “fence permit” and therefore cannot bring a claim 24 that her Fifth Amendment rights were violated. (See Doc. 12 at ¶ 65). 25 Even liberally construed and notwithstanding Defendants’ arguments for dismissal, 26 Plaintiff’s FAC does not provide the Court with sufficient information to identify the 27 missing elements necessary to state any cognizable claim for relief. As a result, State and 28 County Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 40, 42) are granted. 1 III. Motion to Amend 2 The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s Motions to Amend. Plaintiff first moved for leave 3 to amend the FAC (Doc. 14) and lodged her proposed Second Amended Complaint 4 (Doc. 15). Before receiving a ruling on her Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 14), Plaintiff 5 filed another Motion to Amend (Doc. 29) along with a Proposed Amended Second 6 Amended Complaint (Doc. 30). Plaintiff’s subsequent Motion to Amend (Doc. 29) moots 7 her first Motion to Amend (Doc. 14). Accordingly, the Court will assess whether to grant 8 Plaintiff leave to file the proposed amendments in Plaintiff’s “Proposed Amended Second 9 Amended Complaint” (“SAC”) (Doc. 30). 10 A. Proposed Amendments 11 The SAC seeks to add attorney Daniel Oehler as a defendant. (Doc. 30 at 1). 12 Plaintiff also proposes the following additional allegations: 13 • “Inappropriate assignment of this case by Judge Moss” (id. at 2); 14 • “Inappropriate dismissal of Mohave County for the Wrongful 15 Death…awaiting appeals for Judge Napper’s denial to amend the 16 Complaint for Wrongful Death” (id.) 17 • “Inappropriate dismissal of Mohave County for Plaintiff’s Personal Injury 18 claims” (id. at 2–3); 19 • “Inappropriate dismissal of Daniel Oehler” (id. at 3); 20 • “The [SAC] seeks consolidation of the Class Action Complaint…and 21 consolidation of Plaintiff’s Wrongful Death and Personal Injury claims 22 that are pending an Appeal…into this case” (id. at 4); 23 • Jurisdiction over this matter based on “Statute § 12-821 that was codified 24 for the Arizona Tort Act” (id.); 25 • Defendant Ryan Esplin “is charged with fraudulent claims of time- 26 barring…and fraudulently claiming to multiple courts that Plaintiff’s land 27 was subject to Res. 93-348 and not for Res. 93-122” (id. at ¶ 6); 28 • Defendant Jeffrey Haws “is charged with…Collusion with attorney 1 Esplin” (id. at ¶ 7); 2 • Defendant John Napper “erroneously dismissed all of Plaintiff’s 3 defendants in CV 2022 00177” (id. at ¶ 11); and 4 • Judge Napper “has cause for a Third-Party countersuit against Elias for 5 Plaintiff’s damages” (id. at ¶ 39). 6 The SAC also advocates for leave to amend “for Wrongful Death and Plaintiff’s 7 ongoing Personal Injury” as well as “the Class Action Complaint.” (Id. at ¶¶ 29, 37; see 8 also id. at ¶¶ 44, 72–74). The SAC, finally, alleges additional requested relief such as 9 reversing state court orders, adding state appellate judges as defendants, and declaring that 10 the “Arizona Tort Act…does not apply to Real Property damage claims.” (Id. at ¶¶ 51, 55, 11 65). Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s proposed amendments, arguing that they are futile. 12 B. Standard of Review 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) requires that leave to amend “shall be freely 14 given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a). The Ninth Circuit has directed 15 that this policy be applied with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, 16 Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). A district court may, however, 17 deny leave to amend upon consideration of several factors, including prejudice to the 18 opposing party, bad faith, undue delay, and futility. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist 19 W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006). Unless there is a strong showing of any of the 20 factors, “there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” 21 C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir. 2011) 22 (citation omitted). “Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for 23 leave to amend.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). 24 “A proposed amended complaint is futile if it would be immediately subject to 25 dismissal. Thus, the proper test to be applied when determining the legal sufficiency of a 26 proposed amendment is identical to the one used when considering the sufficiency of a 27 pleading challenged under Rule 12(b)(6).” Nordyke v. King, 644 F.3d 776, 788 n.12 (9th 28 Cir. 2011) (quotations and citations omitted), aff’d on reh’g en banc on other grounds, 681 1 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2012). As previously stated, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a 2 complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 3 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 4 C. Discussion 5 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s new allegations suffer from the same defects as the 6 FAC. (See Doc. 33). They contend that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consolidate, enjoin, 7 or relitigate state court cases. Defendants also refer back to their Response (Doc. 19) to 8 Plaintiff’s first Motion to Amend, which argued that Younger abstention applies to 9 Plaintiff’s new allegations, (id. at 3–4), and further claim that Rooker-Feldman bars some 10 of Plaintiff’s amendments. (Doc. 33 at 3). Plaintiff does not directly address these 11 arguments. (See Doc. 37). 12 1. Consolidation of State Court Cases 13 In large part, Plaintiff’s proposed amendments request to consolidate Plaintiff’s 14 “Personal Injury,” “Wrongful Death,” and “Class Action” cases into this case. (See, e.g., 15 Doc. 30 at 2–4, ¶¶ 6, 29, 37, 56–58, 72–74). Defendants argue that the Court lacks the 16 authority to consolidate Plaintiff’s terminated or ongoing state court matters here. (Doc. 33 17 at 3; Doc. 19 at 2). The Court agrees. 18 “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court 19 may…consolidate the actions[.]” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 42(a). Rule 42(a) only permits 20 consolidation of cases “before the court.” Id. (emphasis added). It does not, however, 21 enable the Court to consolidate its federal court case with a case filed in state court, even 22 if there is common parties and subject matter. See O’Donahue v. Tuugiiboss Trans Inc., 23 2024 WL 1533612, *2 (W.D. Wash. 2024); 9A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice 24 and Procedure § 2382 (3d ed. 2023) (“[A] court may not consolidate an action pending in 25 federal court with an action pending in state court.”). So, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding 26 the consolidation of her state court cases are futile. 27 2. Younger and Rooker-Feldman 28 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s amendments are about ongoing or terminated state 1 court cases, and Younger abstention or the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to the 2 amendments as it does the FAC. (Doc. 19 at 3–4; Doc. 33 at 3). Indeed, Plaintiff’s 3 amendments, aside from those requesting consolidation, urge her requests for the Court to 4 relitigate prior state court decisions or effectively enjoin ongoing state appellate 5 proceedings. (See, e.g., Doc. 30 at 2–3, ¶ 11). The SAC does not overcome the abstention 6 required by Younger or the jurisdictional prohibitions under Rooker-Feldman. Rather it 7 expands upon the same allegations and claims that barred her claims in the FAC. 8 Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Replay TV, 298 F. Supp. 2d 921, 927 (C.D. Cal. 2004) 9 (“Where a proposed amendment leaves the Court without subject matter jurisdiction to 10 hear the claims presented, it is futile.”). Thus, for the same reasons explained above, 11 Plaintiff’s amendments are futile as they are subject to either the Rooker-Feldman doctrine 12 or Younger abstention. See Sections I.C.1–2 (dismissing Plaintiff’s claims under Younger 13 and Rooker-Feldman). 14 Despite Rule 15(a)’s presumption in favor of granting leave to amend, Plaintiff’s 15 allegations do nothing more than expand upon the perceived errors in her state court 16 proceedings and ask the Court to improperly relitigate state court proceedings, enjoin 17 pending appellate proceedings, or overturn state court decisions. Plaintiff, additionally, 18 cannot overcome immunity afforded to the State Defendants because she alleges only 19 judicial acts. The amendments also fail to ameliorate the general issues that Plaintiff does 20 not establish the elements of any intended claims. The futility of the proposed amendments 21 precludes the Court from granting leave to amend. 22 Accordingly, 23 IT IS ORDERDED that County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 40) and 24 State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 42) are 25 GRANTED. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Amend 27 Complaint for Consolidation of Class Action et. al.” (Doc. 29) is DENIED. 28 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITH 1|| PREJUDICE and all pending motions (Docs. 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 32, 45, 50, 53) are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this matter. 3 Dated this 21st day of October, 2025. 4

6 norable'Diang/4. Huretewa 7 United States District Fudge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-16-