Opinion
No. 1 CA-CV 15-0077
11-24-2015
BRETT HONIG, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant/Appellee.
COUNSEL Brett Honig, Gilbert Plaintiff/Appellant Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joel Rudd, Aubrey Joy Corcoran Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2014-096514
The Honorable Mark F. Aceto, Judge (Retired)
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Brett Honig, Gilbert
Plaintiff/Appellant
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joel Rudd, Aubrey Joy Corcoran
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Andrew W. Gould joined. NORRIS, Judge:
¶1 Plaintiff/Appellant Brett Honig appeals from the superior court's dismissal of his complaint against "Mental Health Services" for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 On November 11, 2014, Honig filed a civil complaint titled "Mentally Ill Services" in the superior court stating, "something needs to improve in the way the mental health workers are treating patients tackling them down like that physically," and "PCS is getting away with hurting people in the PCS." Honig named "Mental Health Services" as the Defendant/Respondent and did not explain who the "patients" were or what "PCS" stood for. Honig attached a letter to the complaint in which he asserted "Gilbert Police" had handcuffed him behind his back and demanded a hearing to "tell [his] side of the story."
¶3 Honig served the Defendant/Appellee Arizona Department of Health Services on November 17, 2014. On December 1, 2014, ADHS moved to dismiss Honig's complaint for failure to state a claim. In response, Honig filed a "Motion To = Do Not Dissmiss [sic] Case," asserting he had evidence the attorney general's office had lied in its motion to dismiss, and accusing "you guys" of discriminating against him because of his disability. On December 22, 2014, Honig filed a document titled "Moti[o]n Mental Illness" which consisted of a two-page newspaper article concerning mental health and chemical dependency.
¶4 On January 8, 2015, the superior court dismissed the case, certifying its judgment as final under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c).
Although the superior court did not indicate whether its dismissal of Honig's complaint was with or without prejudice, an involuntary dismissal, with certain exceptions, is an adjudication on the merits and therefore appealable. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Phillips v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 123 Ariz. 596, 598, 601 P.2d 596, 598 (1979) ("Rule 41(b) assumes that some dismissals for reasons other than the merits will result in a bar to future litigation as if the suit had been decided on the merits."); see also Airfreight Exp. Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Ctr., Inc., 215 Ariz. 103, 108, ¶ 13, 158 P.3d 232, 237 (App. 2007) (discussing involuntary dismissals and claim preclusion).
DISCUSSION
¶5 As we construe his briefing on appeal, Honig argues the superior court should not have dismissed his complaint, and did so due to bias. We reject both arguments.
In his original complaint, Honig named "PCS," but named "PSC" in his opening brief on appeal. --------
¶6 First, the superior court properly dismissed Honig's complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Honig's complaint did not comport with Rule 8. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief"). Although we review a superior court's dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo, and will assume the truth of all well-plead factual allegations and reasonable inferences from those facts, Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 356, ¶¶ 8-9, 284 P.3d 863, 867 (2012), we will not accept as true—which is the case here—"allegations consisting of conclusions of law, inferences or deductions that are not necessarily implied by well-pleaded facts, unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions from such facts, or legal conclusions alleged as facts." Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 211 Ariz. 386, 389, ¶ 4, 121 P.3d 1256, 1259 (App. 2005). Further, Honig's complaint failed to state any cognizable legal claim entitling him to any relief from ADHS. Thus, the superior court properly dismissed Honig's complaint.
¶7 Second, the record does not support Honig's argument the superior court dismissed his complaint because of bias. See Cook v. Losnegard, 228 Ariz. 202, 206, ¶ 22, 265 P.3d 384, 388 (App. 2011) (superior court judges are presumed to be free of bias and party alleging bias must establish allegation by preponderance of evidence).
CONCLUSION
¶8 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court's order dismissing Honig's complaint.