Salerno v. Ryan

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 FOX JOSEPH SALERNO, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) ) v. ) CHARLES RYAN; STACEY CRABTREE; ) ) ROBERT PATTON; CARSON McWILLIAMS; ERNEST TRUJILLO; and ) STEPHEN MORRIS, ) ) ) Defendants/Appellees. ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 05/03/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-CV 11-0470 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CV2010-096631 The Honorable Larry Grant, Judge AFFIRMED Fox Joseph Salerno Appellant in Propria Persona Florence Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Michele L. Forney, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees ________________________________________________________________ T I M M E R, Presiding Judge ¶1 his Fox Salerno appeals the superior court s dismissal of complaint against a purportedly defaming him. number of prison employees for For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 On August 9, 2010, Salerno filed a complaint in superior court alleging fifteen individual Arizona Department of Corrections ( Department ) officials and employees engaged in a conspiracy to defame him in retaliation for writing a newspaper article criticizing Department operations. of the defendants filed a motion to On October 25, two dismiss the complaint pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because Salerno had required by not filed Arizona Revised 201.01(F) (West 2012). 1 motion. On June 1, his complaint Statutes against the ( A.R.S. ) State section as 31- Three other defendants joined in the 2011, the granting the defendants motion. 2 court entered final judgment This timely appeal followed. DISCUSSION ¶3 Motions sufficiency. to dismiss test a complaint s legal Moretto v. Samaritan Health Sys., 190 Ariz. 343, 346, 947 P.2d 917, 920 (App. 1997). The superior court properly 1 Absent material revision after the date of the events at issue, we cite a statute s current version. 2 The judgment also dismissed the complaint against nine other defendants solely because Salerno failed to serve them with process within the time limit set forth in Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4(i). Salerno does not challenge the efficacy of that ruling. 2 dismisses a complaint only when it can be certain the plaintiff cannot prove facts entitling it to relief. Fid. Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. State, Dep t of Ins., 191 Ariz. 222, 224, ¶ 4, 954 P.2d 580, 582 (1998) (stating that dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate plaintiffs would only not be if as a entitled matter to of relief law . . under interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof ). . any We review the grant of a motion to dismiss for an abuse of discretion. Dressler v. Morrison, 212 Ariz. 279, 281, ¶ 11, 130 P.3d 978, 980 (2006). A trial court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law or predicates its decision on incorrect legal principles. State v. Jackson, 208 Ariz. 56, 59, ¶ 12, 90 P.3d 793, 796 (App. 2004). ¶4 Salerno initially argues the superior court erred by dismissing his complaint because A.R.S. § 31-201.01(L), which prohibits inmates from seeking damages or equitable relief from the State or Department personnel unless the claim is authorized by federal statute or they can allege serious physical injury, is unconstitutional by denying inmates equal protection of the law. But the court dismissed the complaint based on subsection (F) rather than subsection (L). 3 Consequently, the constitutionality of subsection (L) is not properly before us, 3 Salerno erroneously asserts the defendants argued dismissal was also warranted based on A.R.S. § 31-201.01(L). Neither the motion to dismiss nor the reply mentions subsection (L). 3 and we do not address Salerno s arguments. See Home Builders Ass n of Cent. Ariz. v. Kard, 219 Ariz. 374, 377, ¶ 9, 199 P.3d 629, 632 (App. 2008) (citing Armory Park Neighborhood Ass n v. Episcopal Cmty. Svcs., 148 Ariz. 1, 6, 712 P.2d 914, 919 (1985)) (noting our courts observe a policy of prudential or judicial restraint to ensure that we do not issue advisory opinions, address moot cases, or deal with issues that have not been fully developed by true adversaries ). ¶5 Salerno next argues the court erred by dismissing the complaint pursuant to A.R.S. § 31-201.01(F), which provides: Any and all causes of action which may arise out of tort caused by the director, prison officers or employees of the [D]epartment, within the scope of their legal duty, shall run only against the state. See also Tripati v. State, 199 Ariz. 222, 224, ¶ 5, 16 P.3d 783, 785 (App. 2000) (emphasizing that § 31-201.01(F) specifies who may be named as a defendant in an inmate s lawsuit based on allegations of tortious acts by Department . . . personnel ). Thus, § 31-201.01(F) limits liability to the State for torts committed by Department authority, Salerno argues 201.01(F) is a not personnel. that fatal Nevertheless, failure defect to because adhere to (1) the without § 31- State necessarily assumes liability for its employees actions and is not required to be named as a defendant, (2) the State waived this defect because the Attorney General accepted service of the 4 complaint and filed answers on behalf of the defendants, and (3) the court erred by failing to allow Salerno to filed an amended complaint. ¶6 We address each argument in turn. First, defendants even alleged assuming defamation, the State Salerno is could liable not for obtain a judgment against the State without naming it as a defendant. Naming the proper defendant in a complaint is necessary for the court to acquire jurisdiction over that defendant. Ariz. Land & Stock Co. v. Markus, 37 Ariz. 530, 537, 269 P. 251, 253 (1931). Moreover, even assuming Salerno could comply with § 31-201.01(F) by naming the individuals as defendants capacities, he did not do so. Salerno is defamatory suing [the statements in their official The complaint explicitly states defendants] [and] as individuals, malice actual for all by defendants . . . in their individual capacity. ¶7 complaint Second, we fail to discern how accepting service of a that inconsistent has with not that been reviewed party s sufficiency of that complaint. later act by in a defendant is challenging the See Jones v. Cochise County, 218 Ariz. 372, 379, ¶ 23, 187 P.2d 97, 104 (App. 2008) ( Waiver by conduct must be established by evidence of acts inconsistent with an intent to assert the right. ) (citation omitted). And the defendants responded to the complaint by filing the motion 5 to dismiss rather than answering the complaint, thereby raising the statutory defense at the earliest opportunity. ¶8 Third, and finally, the superior court did not err by failing to allow Salerno to file an amended complaint. Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) requires a plaintiff who moves to amend a complaint to attach a copy of the proposed amended complaint to the motion and highlight the proposed changes. Salerno did not comply with this rule. ¶9 In summary, Salerno violated A.R.S. § 31-201.01(F) by suing Department personnel for allegedly defaming him. Such tort actions must be filed against the State. Because Salerno did superior not name the State as a defendant, the court properly dismissed the complaint. 4 CONCLUSION ¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court s judgment dismissing Salerno s complaint. /s/ Ann A. Scott Timmer, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Patricia K. Norris, Judge /s/ Donn Kessler, Judge 4 Salerno also argues A.R.S. § 31-201.01(F) is unconstitutional. But Salerno waived this argument by raising it for the first time in his reply brief, which deprived appellees the opportunity to address it. Romero v. Sw. Ambulance, 211 Ariz. 200, ¶ 7, n.3, 119 P.3d 467, 471 n.3 (App. 2005). 6

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.