Salerno v. Schriro
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) Petitioner/Appellant, ) ) v. ) DORA B. SCHRIRO; ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ) ) CORRECTIONS, ) ) Respondents/Appellees. _______________________________________ ) FOX JOSEPH SALERNO, DIVISION ONE FILED: 07-13-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: DN 1 CA-CV 09-0295 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. LC2008-000770-001 DT The Honorable Joseph Kreamer, Judge AFFIRMED Fox Joseph Salerno, Petitioner/Appellant In Propria Persona Florence Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Lisa Parsons, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Respondents/Appellees Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 Fox Joseph Salerno (Salerno) appeals from the trial court s order declining jurisdiction of his special action. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. ¶2 Salerno, an inmate at the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) Florence facility, filed a special action in superior court alleging that ADOC violated his constitutional rights and various state and agency law and policy by keeping him housed at a high security facility, by issuing disciplinaries, and by failing to process his appeals. fake Salerno maintains that in the absence of the fake disciplinaries he would have been reclassified and eligible for housing in a medium security facility. In ADOC inmate disciplinary report 08A30006, Salerno was charged with an extortion or intimidation violation after he sent a correctional officer a letter threatening to have a friend find the correctional officer s home address and drop off his grievances against the officer personally. In disciplinary report 08A120095, Salerno was charged with an extortion violation for sending a letter to another correctional officer accusing the officer of owing him $93.60 for missing property and threatening to send a friend to the officer s house to collect the debt from the officer or the officer s family. Salerno was found guilty of both violations. ¶3 On appeal, Salerno argues that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to accept jurisdiction of his special action. Acceptance of special action jurisdiction is highly discretionary. Pompa v. Super. Court In and For the County of Maricopa, 187 Ariz. 531, 931 P.2d 431 (App. 1997). In part, the trial court declined to accept jurisdiction because it found that Salerno s due process rights had not been violated in the context of ADOC s disciplinary process. The record on appeal includes 2 reports of the pertinent incidents including the contents of the letters written by Salerno which are threatening and which support the disciplinary action against him. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining jurisdiction on the basis that there was no merit to Salerno s petition. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, the trial court is affirmed. /s/ _______________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
