Opinion
1 CA-CV 23-0713
07-30-2024
JESSIE LEWIS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE OF ARIZONA, et al., Defendants/Appellees.
Jessie Lewis, Phoenix Plaintiff/Appellant Arizona Attorney General's Office, Tucson By Hannah Chute, Rebecca Banes Counsel for Defendants/Appellees State of Arizona Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Anna Critz, Kimberly D. Chamberlain, Sean M. Moore Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Maricopa County
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2023-008314 The Honorable John R. Hannah, Judge
Jessie Lewis, Phoenix Plaintiff/Appellant
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Tucson By Hannah Chute, Rebecca Banes Counsel for Defendants/Appellees State of Arizona
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Anna Critz, Kimberly D. Chamberlain, Sean M. Moore Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Maricopa County
Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Anni Hill Foster and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BAILEY, JUDGE
¶1 Jessie Lewis appeals the superior court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to comply with the notice of claim statute. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 "We assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts." Yahweh v. City of Phoenix, 243 Ariz. 21, 22, ¶ 2 (App. 2017) (citation omitted).
¶3 Lewis, a prison inmate, sued several government officials in June 2023, including Governor Katie Hobbs and Administrative Office of the Courts Director David Byers ("State Defendants"), and Maricopa County Attorney's Office employees Rachel Mitchell, Barbara Marshall, Jason Kalish, and Ryan Green ("County Defendants"). He alleged that during his 2014 criminal prosecution, the assigned prosecutor (a non-party in this appeal) obtained federal grants to financially aid the case. According to Lewis, the receipt of these grants required the Defendants to file federal tax forms on his behalf. He claimed they failed to do so and thus caused him harm.
¶4 Lewis also stated that he filed a notice of claim, "on all defendant[]s," as required under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 12-821.01 (the "notice of claim statute"). The record shows that in February 2023, Lewis served a notice of claim to the Office of the Attorney General and to the Risk Management Division of the Arizona Department of Administration, but this notice was not addressed to the State Defendants. In September 2023, he sent a letter to Governor Hobbs asking her to file his requested tax forms and indicated that her failure to do so would result in his filing a notice of claim. The record does not contain a subsequent notice of claim served on Governor Hobbs. He also sent a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request to Director Byers. The record contains no notice of claim served on Director Byers.
¶5 Lewis served a purported notice of claim on the County Defendants in February 2023, which stated that on December 5, 2022, "all named defendant[]s failed to file the federal tax form 1099 OID and 1096," which "was a request from claimant Lewis," and that he was "pursuing a tax recovery."
¶6 The State and County Defendants separately moved to dismiss Lewis' complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing, in part, that Lewis failed to state a claim and failed to comply with the notice of claim statute. Lewis responded that he had "stated a valid claim regarding delinquent tax recovery" and satisfied the notice of claim statute because he "sent/mailed letter[]s to all named defendant[]s requesting the filing of the 1099 OID."
¶7 The superior court concluded Lewis failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and that he failed to comply with the notice of claim statute, finding "no defendant received a notice that set forth a cognizable basis for liability on the part of that defendant," see A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). The court found it would be futile to allow Lewis to amend his complaint and granted the State and County Defendants' motions to dismiss. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).
DISCUSSION
¶8 Lewis presents the issue of whether he failed to state a claim. While he cites various letters and requests that he purportedly sent to government officials, he develops no argument on that issue and has therefore waived it on appeal. Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97, 186 Ariz. 161, 167 (App. 1996) ("Issues not clearly raised and argued in a party's appellate brief are waived." (citations omitted)). He also contends that he complied with the notice of claim statute, citing to notice of claim forms he sent to the Attorney General, Risk Management, and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office. We review de novo whether a party complied with the notice of claim statute. Jones v. Cochise Cnty., 218 Ariz. 372, 375, ¶ 7 (App. 2008).
¶9 Before suing a public employee for damages arising from conduct committed within the course and scope of his or her employment, a claimant must strictly comply with the notice of claim statute. Crum v. Superior Court, 186 Ariz. 351, 352 (App. 1996); Yahweh, 243 Ariz. at 23, ¶ 12. The notice of claim must contain "facts sufficient to permit the . . . public employee to understand the basis on which liability is claimed" and "a specific amount for which the claim can be settled and the facts supporting that amount." A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). The notice of claim statute requires service "with the person or persons authorized to accept service for the . . . public employee as set forth in the Arizona [R]ules of [C]ivil [P]rocedure." Id.
I. State Defendants
¶10 The record contains no notice of claim served on the State Defendants, or on any person authorized to accept service on their behalf. See id. Lewis sent a notice of claim to the Attorney General and Risk Management offices, but these entities were not served with Lewis' complaint and are not parties to this appeal. In his letter to Governor Hobbs, he wrote, "if this request is not compl[i]ed with within a statutory twenty (20) day[s] time . . . a notice of claim for damages will be filed." Lewis therefore knew that serving Governor Hobbs with a notice of claim was the next step in his lawsuit but failed to do so.
¶11 And Lewis' FOIA request did not put Director Byers on notice of potential claims against him. The notice of claim must "describe facts 'sufficient to permit' the public [employee] to evaluate liability." Backus v. State, 220 Ariz. 101, 106, ¶ 22 (2009) (quoting Havasupai Tribe v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 220 Ariz. 214, 225, ¶ 40 (App. 2008)). Lewis' FOIA request does not meet this standard.
¶12 Finally, neither correspondence stated a specific amount that Lewis would accept to settle his claims. See Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, ¶ 9 (2007) (The notice of claim must "identify the specific amount for which [the claimant] will settle and provide facts supporting that amount."). The superior court did not err in dismissing Lewis' claims against the State Defendants.
II. County Defendants
¶13 Lewis' purported notice of claim to the County Defendants stated that on December 5, 2022, "all named defendant[]s failed to file the federal tax form 1099 OID and 1096," which "was a request from claimant Lewis," and that he was "pursuing a tax recovery."
¶14 "[T]he notice of claim statute directs that all claims 'shall contain facts sufficient to permit the public [employee] . . . to understand the basis upon which liability is claimed.'" Id. at 295, ¶ 6 (quoting A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A)). Lewis' bare allegation that "all named defendant[]s" failed to file certain tax forms, for which Lewis was seeking "$65.00 [from] each defendant[]," was insufficient under the notice of claim statute to put the County Defendants on notice of his claims against them, or their liability as to his claims. Lewis offered no other facts supporting his allegation, nor did he provide facts supporting the requested settlement amount of $65.00 per defendant. See id. at 296, ¶ 9 (Claimants must "explain the amounts identified in the claim by providing the government [employee] with a factual foundation to permit the [employee] to evaluate the amount claimed."). The superior court did not err in dismissing Lewis' claims against the County Defendants.
CONCLUSION
¶15 We affirm the dismissal of Lewis' complaint.