Bradley v. Bradley
2:22-cv-01435
D. Ariz.Jan 11, 2023Background:
- Plaintiff Scott T. Bradley sued eight defendants arising from a post-divorce child custody and child-support dispute, alleging constitutional violations, conspiracy, fraud, and a federal misprision-of-felony claim; he sought injunctive relief, restoration of property, custody, and damages.
- Relevant events include defendant Lori Bradley’s 2022 petition to modify child support/custody, Plaintiff’s multiple attempts to enforce parenting time (including police reports), and a reported August 12, 2022 phone call between Judge Bradley and PHXPD Detective Jasquin Gibson.
- Plaintiff alleged Gibson closed or concealed investigations, violated his constitutional rights, and conspired with others; he asserted misprision of felony and tort claims against Gibson and PHXPD.
- Plaintiff alleged Judge Tracey Westerhausen (a Maricopa County Superior Court judge) participated in a conspiracy and rendered judicial decisions violating his rights; he sought damages and injunctive relief against her.
- Plaintiff named Maricopa County though the complaint contained no independent factual allegations against the County distinct from actions taken by the Superior Court.
- The court granted three motions to dismiss (PHXPD & Gibson; Judge Westerhausen; Maricopa County), dismissed those defendants with prejudice, and denied leave to amend as futile.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PHXPD is a proper suable entity | PHXPD was sued for Gibson’s conduct and department practices | PHXPD is a non‑jural agency of the City of Phoenix and cannot be sued | Court: PHXPD is a non‑jural entity; dismissed |
| Whether Gibson can be held liable for misprision, constitutional violations, conspiracy, and torts | Gibson heard false allegations, concealed crimes, and thereby violated rights and committed misprision of felony and other torts | No private cause of action exists under 18 U.S.C. § 4; Plaintiff fails to plead facts showing constitutional violation; qualified immunity applies; tort elements not pleaded | Court: Misprision claim dismissed (no private right); constitutional claims blocked by qualified immunity; conspiracy and tort claims inadequately pleaded; dismissed |
| Whether Judge Westerhausen is subject to damages or injunctive relief for actions in the family court case | Judicial acts and orders deprived Plaintiff of rights and are subject to suit | Judicial immunity bars damage claims; injunctive relief limited by § 1983, § 2283, and Eleventh Amendment | Court: Judicial immunity bars damages; injunctive relief unavailable or precluded by statute and jurisdictional doctrines; dismissed |
| Whether Maricopa County is liable for actions of the Superior Court or its judge | County liable for conduct of county Superior Court personnel | Superior Court is a state office judicially independent of county control; no independent allegations against County | Court: No facts pled against County; County cannot be held liable for Superior Court/judges; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading-standards: factual plausibility requirement)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading-standards: plausibility framework)
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (failure-to-state-a-claim standards)
- Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 706 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2013) (view allegations in light most favorable to plaintiff)
- Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus, 871 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2017) (qualified immunity framework)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two‑prong test)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity protects reasonable mistaken judgments)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (limits on official liability; qualified immunity principles)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (clarity required to find a right "clearly established")
- Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2010) (defining specificity needed to show clearly established right)
- Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) (judicial immunity doctrine overview)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (factors for determining whether an act is judicial)
- Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984) (injunctive relief against judges; limits of judicial immunity)
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985) (scope of judicial immunity despite error)
- Gotbaum v. City of Phoenix, 617 F. Supp. 2d 878 (D. Ariz. 2008) (Phoenix Police Department is non‑jural and not a proper defendant)