MELINDA G. VALENZUELA v. STATE OF ARIZONA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO MELINDA G. VALENZUELA, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Defendant/Appellee. No. 2 CA-CV 2016-0073 Filed August 31, 2016 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CV201500965 The Honorable Stephen F. McCarville, Judge APPEAL DISMISSED COUNSEL Melinda G. Valenzuela, Buckeye In Propria Persona Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General By Michael E. Gottfried, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix Counsel for Defendant/Appellee VALENZUELA v. STATE OF ARIZONA Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Staring concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 Melinda Valenzuela appeals the trial court’s judgment dismissing her case without prejudice for failure to submit proof of service. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. Factual and Procedural History ¶2 Valenzuela, an inmate in the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC), filed a complaint against the state and others, alleging it “deliberately den[ied her medical] care” after she was assaulted by another inmate. Valenzuela failed to “submit verification that the Defendants had been properly served,” and the trial court dismissed her complaint without prejudice. This appeal followed. Jurisdiction ¶3 An appellant has a duty to identify the jurisdictional basis of an appeal under Rule 13(a)(4), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., and “[w]e, in turn, have an independent duty to confirm our jurisdiction over the appeal before us,” Anderson v. Valley Union High Sch., Dist. No. 22, 229 Ariz. 52, ¶ 2, 270 P.3d 879, 881 (App. 2012). Our jurisdiction is purely statutory and is generally limited to appeals from final judgments. See Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., 236 Ariz. 221, ¶ 3, 338 P.3d 328, 330 (App. 2014). ¶4 “A dismissal without prejudice is not a final judgment and is therefore generally not appealable.” Canyon Ambulatory Surgery Ctr. v. SCF Ariz., 225 Ariz. 414, ¶ 14, 239 P.3d 733, 737-38 (App. 2010). Valenzuela does not specify the basis of this court’s jurisdiction or explain why, in this particular case, the “dismissal . . . without prejudice is appealable.” Id. Nor does she provide any 2 VALENZUELA v. STATE OF ARIZONA Decision of the Court “citations of legal authorities and . . . references to the . . . record.” Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A). It is not incumbent on this court to develop legal arguments and discharge a party’s obligations. See Ace Auto. Prods., Inc. v. Van Duyne, 156 Ariz. 140, 143, 750 P.2d 898, 901 (App. 1987); see also In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, ¶ 13, 200 P.3d 1043, 1046 (App. 2008) (parties who represent themselves held to same standards as attorneys in complying with procedural rules). Disposition ¶5 Because Valenzuela has failed to establish appellate jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed. 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.