Potter v. Meza et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Phillip Potter,
Plaintiff,
v.
Robert Meza, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00663-PHX-DWL
ORDER
In his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), pro se Plaintiff sued five different
defendants (AG Mayes, the Presiding Judge, Meza, Robson, and Ortega) and asserted five
causes of action. (Doc. 14.) However, in an order issued on January 6, 2026, the Court
dismissed the FAC in full. (Doc. 100.) The order also authorized Plaintiff to file a Second
Amended Complaint (“SAC”) but clarified that the scope of leave to amend was quite
narrow—Plaintiff was only authorized to amend his claim in Count Two against AG Mayes
and to reassert his claims in Counts Four and Five against Ortega. (Id. at 66-67.)
Additionally, “[t]he changes shall be limited to attempting to cure the deficiencies that led
to the dismissal of Count Two.” (Id. at 67.)
On January 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed the SAC. (Doc. 104.) It reasserts all five of the
claims that appeared in the FAC and identifies, as defendants, all five of the individuals
named as defendants in the FAC. Four of the five defendants named in the SAC (everyone
but the Presiding Judge) have now filed motions to strike and/or dismiss the SAC. (Docs.
108, 109, 110, 112.)
Case 2:25-cv-00663-DWL Document 113 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court finds it unnecessary to wait for some of those motions to become fully
briefed before taking action. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Because the SAC reasserts
Counts One and Three (as well as Counts Four and Five as against Meza and Robson) and
continues to name the Presiding Judge, Meza, and Robson as defendants, it disregards the
limited scope of leave to amend specified in the January 6, 2026 order. The Court will
therefore dismiss those claims and defendants. See, e.g., Strifling v. Twitter Inc., 2024 WL
54976, *1 (N.D. Cal. 2024) (“[C]ourts in this district consistently strike or dismiss parties
and claims that exceed the scope of an order granting leave to amend.”); Legrama v.
Fremont Inv. & Loan, 2011 WL 2791130, *2 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“First American contends
that because the Court dismissed each of the foregoing claims without leave to amend,
Plaintiffs’ reassertion of such claims renders them immaterial and impertinent and they
should be stricken from the Amended Complaint. The Court agrees.”). Additionally or
alternatively, those claims and defendants remain subject to dismissal for the same reasons
specified in the January 6, 2026 order.
As for AG Mayes, although Plaintiff’s failure to file a redlined version of the SAC
indicating how it differs from the FAC, see LRCiv 15.1, makes it difficult to determine
whether the changes in the SAC are, in fact, limited to attempting to cure the deficiencies
that led to the dismissal of Count Two, AG Mayes does not seek dismissal of the SAC on
this basis. (Doc. 110.) Moreover, AG Mayes provides, as an exhibit to her motion to
dismiss, a document that seemingly identifies those changes. (Doc. 110-2.) The Court will
therefore allow the SAC to stand as to AG Mayes and rule on her motion to dismiss in due
course after it becomes fully briefed. Likewise, the Court will allow the SAC to stand as
to Ortega and rule on her motion to dismiss in due course after it becomes fully briefed.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Counts One and Three of the SAC are stricken and dismissed without leave
to amend. Counts Four and Five of the SAC are stricken and dismissed as against Meza
and Robson without leave to amend.
Case 2:25-cv-00663-DWL Document 113 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. The Presiding Judge, Meza, and Robson are dismissed as defendants.
3. Robson’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 109) is denied as moot.
4. Meza’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 112) is denied as moot.
Dated this 4th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-00663-DWL Document 113 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 3