Opinion
Lead No. CV10-2756-PHX-NVW, Consolidated with: No. CV10-2757-PHX-NVW, No. CV10-2758-PHX-NVW, No. CV11-0116-PHX-NVW, No. CV11-0262-PHX-NVW, No. CV11-0473-PHX-NVW.
May 26, 2011
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant William Montgomery's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, which is pending in CV11-0116 ("Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs") (Doc. 18). Defendant Montgomery is the current Maricopa County attorney. The Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs have sued Montgomery in his official capacity as County attorney, and not in his personal capacity. The Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs do not claim that Montgomery himself committed any wrongdoing, or that he is responsible for the wrongdoing of any other party; indeed, Montgomery became County attorney only after the events at issue in these actions took place.
When a state or local official is sued in his official capacity, the practical effect is the same as suing the County itself for damages. Because the Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs have also named the County as a defendant in their action, there is no purpose in maintaining Montgomery as a defendant; the potential for Plaintiffs' recovery is the same, whether Montgomery is a named defendant in his official capacity or whether he is dismissed, because the County remains a defendant. The fact that the County has to date denied the allegations against it does not make Montgomery a necessary party to this litigation. Rather, because he is a redundant defendant, the Court will grant Montgomery's motion to dismiss. See Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. L.A. County Sheriff Dep't, 533 F.3d 790, 799 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that when "both a municipal officer and a local government entity are named, and the officer is named only in an official capacity, the court may dismiss the officer as a redundant defendant").
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant William Montgomery's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, pending in CV11-0116 (Doc. 18), is granted.
DATED this 25th day of May, 2011.