1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Ksenya V Verse, No. CV-25-01581-PHX-KML
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Paul Douglas Scott, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Ksenya V. Verse filed a complaint naming as defendants her former 16 spouse, her former spouse’s counsel, a state court judge, and the State Bar of Arizona. 17 Verse also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Although Verse is entitled to 18 proceed in forma pauperis, two of the defendants cannot be sued in federal court and there 19 may be jurisdictional issues regarding Verse’s claims against the other two defendants. 20 Two defendants are dismissed and Verse is required to establish the presence of diversity 21 jurisdiction. 22 Sometime before 2015, Verse and defendant Paul Douglas Scott were married. The 23 couple had one child together. Verse and Scott separated in 2015 and divorced in 2017. 24 (Doc. 1 at 2.) Beginning in 2015, Scott allegedly engaged in a campaign to “make [Verse] 25 economically collapse, and then use that collapse to discredit her as a parent.” (Doc. 1 at 26 2.) Scott and his counsel, defendant Greg R. Davis, also engaged in “coordinated slander 27 and defamation campaigns” against Verse. (Doc. 1 at 2.) 28 Before February 2025, Verse and Scott were engaged in family court litigation in 1 Maricopa County Superior Court. In connection with that litigation, Davis “stalked, 2 tracked, and surveilled” Verse. (Doc. 1 at 2.) On February 14, 2025, defendant James 3 Knapp, a superior court judge, issued a judgment against Scott. Verse appealed from that 4 judgment and her appeal remains pending. At some point in this sequence of events Verse 5 filed a “formal Bar Complaint” with the State Bar of Arizona that included “overwhelming 6 evidence of fraud, perjury, ethical breaches, and judicial misconduct.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) The 7 State Bar “summarily dismissed” the complaint. (Doc. 1 at 2.) 8 On May 9, 2025, Verse filed her complaint in this court alleging a variety of federal 9 civil rights claims and tort claims. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Verse also filed an “Emergency Motion 10 for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.” (Doc. 3.) That motion 11 requests an injunction prohibiting the state court litigation from proceeding until her appeal 12 is final. She also requests defendants be prohibited from “[i]ssuing or communicating 13 threats of incarceration, fines, or coercive demands,” and that “this matter” be referred for 14 “judicial review and oversight.” (Doc. 3 at 2-3.) On May 12, 2025, Verse filed a 15 “supplement” to her complaint with additional evidence allegedly establishing “all state 16 mechanisms for redress have failed to act.” (Doc. 7 at 2.) 17 When a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court may “dismiss the case 18 at any time” if the complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted” or 19 “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(2). And “a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, 21 at any time during the pendency of the action.” Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 22 (9th Cir. 2002). 23 Beginning with those defendants who are immune from suit, Verse cannot sue Judge 24 Knapp or the State Bar of Arizona. Verse is attempting to assert claims for money damages 25 against Judge Knapp based on actions Judge Knapp took in his judicial capacity during the 26 proceedings in superior court. Whether she is attempting to assert federal or state-law 27 claims against Judge Knapp, he is entitled to absolute immunity from money damages. 28 Burk v. State, 156 P.3d 423, 426 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (noting “judges are absolutely 1 immune from damages lawsuits for their judicial acts”); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 2 (1967) (discussing “the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed 3 within their judicial jurisdiction”). And the Eleventh Amendment prevents Verse from 4 obtaining any injunctive relief against Judge Knapp. Munoz v. Superior Court of Los 5 Angeles County, 91 F.4th 977, 981 (9th Cir. 2024) (“state court judges cannot be sued in 6 federal court in their judicial capacity under the Eleventh Amendment”). Judge Knapp is 7 dismissed. 8 Verse also asserts claims for money damages and injunctive relief against the State 9 Bar of Arizona. But the State Bar of Arizona qualifies as “an arm of the state,” meaning 10 the Eleventh Amendment prevents Verse from obtaining any injunctive relief against it. 11 Fitzhugh v. Miller, No. CV-19-04632-PHX-DWL, 2020 WL 1640495, at *6 (D. Ariz. Apr. 12 2, 2020). The State Bar of Arizona is dismissed. 13 The two remaining defendants are Scott and Davis. Verse asserts both federal civil 14 rights and state-law claims against them and possibly seeks emergency injunctive relief 15 against them.1 These defendants are not immune from suit, but all of Verse’s federal claims 16 fail and there may not be an independent jurisdictional basis for her claims to remain in 17 this court. 18 Beginning with Verse’s federal claims, there are no allegations establishing Scott or 19 Davis is a “state actor” or a “federal actor.” As a result, none of Verse’s federal civil rights 20 claims are plausible against these defendants. See Pasadena Republican Club v. W. Just. 21 Ctr., 985 F.3d 1161, 1171 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Like § 1983, which requires the wrongdoer to 22 be a state actor, § 1985(3) requires at least one of the wrongdoers in the alleged conspiracy 23 to be a state actor.”); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th 24 Cir. 1988) (“A claim can be stated under section 1986 only if the complaint contains a valid 25 claim under section 1985.”); Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991) 26 (“Actions under § 1983 and those under Bivens are identical save for the replacement of a
27 1 The portion of Verse’s emergency motion explaining the request she seeks appears to focus primarily on actions that might be taken by Judge Knapp, such as “[p]roceeding with 28 any contempt hearings” or issuing “threats of incarceration, fines, or coercive demands.” (Doc. 3 at 2-3.) 1 state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens.”). That leaves only Verse’s state- 2 law claims. 3 Verse alleges Scott and Davis engaged in abuse of process, malicious prosecution, 4 and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The complaint likely does not contain 5 sufficient factual allegations supporting these claims and the claims could be dismissed on 6 that basis. But a preliminary issue is whether the court has jurisdiction. The dismissal of 7 Verse’s federal claims means the court has an independent jurisdictional basis to hear her 8 claims against Scott and Davis only if Verse is a citizen of a different state than either Scott 9 or Davis, and more than $75,000 is in controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Wisconsin Dep’t 10 of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 388 (1998) (diversity jurisdiction requires “no plaintiff 11 and no defendant who are citizens of the same State”). Verse seeks twenty million dollars, 12 so the amount-in-controversy requirement is met.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Ksenya V Verse, No. CV-25-01581-PHX-KML
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Paul Douglas Scott, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Ksenya V. Verse filed a complaint naming as defendants her former 16 spouse, her former spouse’s counsel, a state court judge, and the State Bar of Arizona. 17 Verse also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Although Verse is entitled to 18 proceed in forma pauperis, two of the defendants cannot be sued in federal court and there 19 may be jurisdictional issues regarding Verse’s claims against the other two defendants. 20 Two defendants are dismissed and Verse is required to establish the presence of diversity 21 jurisdiction. 22 Sometime before 2015, Verse and defendant Paul Douglas Scott were married. The 23 couple had one child together. Verse and Scott separated in 2015 and divorced in 2017. 24 (Doc. 1 at 2.) Beginning in 2015, Scott allegedly engaged in a campaign to “make [Verse] 25 economically collapse, and then use that collapse to discredit her as a parent.” (Doc. 1 at 26 2.) Scott and his counsel, defendant Greg R. Davis, also engaged in “coordinated slander 27 and defamation campaigns” against Verse. (Doc. 1 at 2.) 28 Before February 2025, Verse and Scott were engaged in family court litigation in 1 Maricopa County Superior Court. In connection with that litigation, Davis “stalked, 2 tracked, and surveilled” Verse. (Doc. 1 at 2.) On February 14, 2025, defendant James 3 Knapp, a superior court judge, issued a judgment against Scott. Verse appealed from that 4 judgment and her appeal remains pending. At some point in this sequence of events Verse 5 filed a “formal Bar Complaint” with the State Bar of Arizona that included “overwhelming 6 evidence of fraud, perjury, ethical breaches, and judicial misconduct.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) The 7 State Bar “summarily dismissed” the complaint. (Doc. 1 at 2.) 8 On May 9, 2025, Verse filed her complaint in this court alleging a variety of federal 9 civil rights claims and tort claims. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Verse also filed an “Emergency Motion 10 for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.” (Doc. 3.) That motion 11 requests an injunction prohibiting the state court litigation from proceeding until her appeal 12 is final. She also requests defendants be prohibited from “[i]ssuing or communicating 13 threats of incarceration, fines, or coercive demands,” and that “this matter” be referred for 14 “judicial review and oversight.” (Doc. 3 at 2-3.) On May 12, 2025, Verse filed a 15 “supplement” to her complaint with additional evidence allegedly establishing “all state 16 mechanisms for redress have failed to act.” (Doc. 7 at 2.) 17 When a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court may “dismiss the case 18 at any time” if the complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted” or 19 “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(2). And “a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, 21 at any time during the pendency of the action.” Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 22 (9th Cir. 2002). 23 Beginning with those defendants who are immune from suit, Verse cannot sue Judge 24 Knapp or the State Bar of Arizona. Verse is attempting to assert claims for money damages 25 against Judge Knapp based on actions Judge Knapp took in his judicial capacity during the 26 proceedings in superior court. Whether she is attempting to assert federal or state-law 27 claims against Judge Knapp, he is entitled to absolute immunity from money damages. 28 Burk v. State, 156 P.3d 423, 426 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (noting “judges are absolutely 1 immune from damages lawsuits for their judicial acts”); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 2 (1967) (discussing “the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed 3 within their judicial jurisdiction”). And the Eleventh Amendment prevents Verse from 4 obtaining any injunctive relief against Judge Knapp. Munoz v. Superior Court of Los 5 Angeles County, 91 F.4th 977, 981 (9th Cir. 2024) (“state court judges cannot be sued in 6 federal court in their judicial capacity under the Eleventh Amendment”). Judge Knapp is 7 dismissed. 8 Verse also asserts claims for money damages and injunctive relief against the State 9 Bar of Arizona. But the State Bar of Arizona qualifies as “an arm of the state,” meaning 10 the Eleventh Amendment prevents Verse from obtaining any injunctive relief against it. 11 Fitzhugh v. Miller, No. CV-19-04632-PHX-DWL, 2020 WL 1640495, at *6 (D. Ariz. Apr. 12 2, 2020). The State Bar of Arizona is dismissed. 13 The two remaining defendants are Scott and Davis. Verse asserts both federal civil 14 rights and state-law claims against them and possibly seeks emergency injunctive relief 15 against them.1 These defendants are not immune from suit, but all of Verse’s federal claims 16 fail and there may not be an independent jurisdictional basis for her claims to remain in 17 this court. 18 Beginning with Verse’s federal claims, there are no allegations establishing Scott or 19 Davis is a “state actor” or a “federal actor.” As a result, none of Verse’s federal civil rights 20 claims are plausible against these defendants. See Pasadena Republican Club v. W. Just. 21 Ctr., 985 F.3d 1161, 1171 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Like § 1983, which requires the wrongdoer to 22 be a state actor, § 1985(3) requires at least one of the wrongdoers in the alleged conspiracy 23 to be a state actor.”); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th 24 Cir. 1988) (“A claim can be stated under section 1986 only if the complaint contains a valid 25 claim under section 1985.”); Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991) 26 (“Actions under § 1983 and those under Bivens are identical save for the replacement of a
27 1 The portion of Verse’s emergency motion explaining the request she seeks appears to focus primarily on actions that might be taken by Judge Knapp, such as “[p]roceeding with 28 any contempt hearings” or issuing “threats of incarceration, fines, or coercive demands.” (Doc. 3 at 2-3.) 1 state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens.”). That leaves only Verse’s state- 2 law claims. 3 Verse alleges Scott and Davis engaged in abuse of process, malicious prosecution, 4 and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The complaint likely does not contain 5 sufficient factual allegations supporting these claims and the claims could be dismissed on 6 that basis. But a preliminary issue is whether the court has jurisdiction. The dismissal of 7 Verse’s federal claims means the court has an independent jurisdictional basis to hear her 8 claims against Scott and Davis only if Verse is a citizen of a different state than either Scott 9 or Davis, and more than $75,000 is in controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Wisconsin Dep’t 10 of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 388 (1998) (diversity jurisdiction requires “no plaintiff 11 and no defendant who are citizens of the same State”). Verse seeks twenty million dollars, 12 so the amount-in-controversy requirement is met. But Verse appears to be a citizen of 13 Arizona and one of Verse’s filings indicates Davis is an Arizona attorney practicing in 14 Arizona, making it likely he is an Arizona citizen. (Doc. 7 at 8.). If they are both citizens 15 of Arizona, there is not an independent jurisdictional basis for the remaining claims. And 16 given the early stage of this litigation, the court would decline to exercise supplemental 17 jurisdiction over any state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Verse must file a supplement 18 identifying the citizenship of Scott and Davis. 19 Finally, Verse seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction but 20 does not identify what relief she is seeking against each defendant. Assuming Verse is 21 seeking early injunctive relief against Scott and Davis, the strong possibility the parties are 22 not diverse and that the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction means 23 Verse has not established a significant likelihood of success on the merits. See Winter v. 24 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (listing factors required to obtain early 25 injunctive relief). The motion is denied. 26 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 27 Injunction (Doc. 3) is DENIED. 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Application (Doc. 4) is GRANTED. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 8) is 2|| DENIED. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all claims against defendants James Knapp and the 4|| State Bar of Arizona are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than May 30, 2025, plaintiff Ksenya Verse || shall file a supplement identifying the citizenships of defendants Paul Douglas Scott and 7\| Greg R. Davis. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal without 8 || prejudice if no supplement is filed by that date. 9 Dated this 16th day of May, 2025. 10 11 é V4) hy Va ny fy G / .
Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-5-