Nina Alley v. County of Pima, 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
Nina Alley,
Plaintiff,
v.
County of Pima, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-15-00152-TUC-RM
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Reopen (Doc. 1202) and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Joint Motion to Reopen (Doc. 1198).
On June 10, 2024, the Court stayed the above-captioned matter pending resolution
of former Plaintiff Louis Taylor’s1 state post-conviction proceedings challenging his 2013
convictions. (Doc. 1174.) The Court later administratively closed the matter and directed
the parties to file a joint motion to reopen following resolution of the state post-conviction
proceedings. (Doc. 1192.)
In their Joint Motion to Reopen, the parties aver that the state court denied Taylor’s
Petition for Post-Conviction Relief on November 6, 2025, and they attach a copy of the
state court’s ruling. (Doc. 1202.) Plaintiff asks the Court to set a status conference in this
matter. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also avers that he intends to file a claim for compensation under
a recently enacted statute, A.R.S. § 13-4296. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff argues that, if such a
claim succeeds, it would “likely” satisfy the favorable termination requirement of Heck v.
1 Taylor’s Guardian and Conservator, Nina Alley, has been substituted as the named
Plaintiff in this action. The Court refers herein to Taylor interchangeably as Plaintiff.
Case 4:15-cv-00152-RM Document 1204 Filed 12/18/25 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
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff asks that a trial in the above-captioned
matter be set sufficiently far in the future to allow for resolution of his anticipated A.R.S.
§ 13-4296 claim, but he also argues that any further delays in this case “should and must
be minimized.” (Id.) Plaintiff requests that the Court rule on any previously filed motions
that have not yet been addressed, but that the Court postpone ruling on his Equitable
Estoppel Motion until after resolution of his anticipated § 13-4296 claim. (Id. at 3-4.)
Defendants argue that there is no basis for deferring a ruling on Plaintiff’s Equitable
Estoppel Motion. (Id. at 10-11.) Defendants request leave to file a supplement to their
Response to the Equitable Estoppel Motion and a renewed summary judgment motion
addressing the testimony presented during Taylor’s post-conviction hearing. (Id. at 11-
12.)
The Court will grant the parties’ Joint Motion to Reopen and direct the Clerk of
Court to mark as pending all previously filed Motions that have not yet been resolved in
full. The Court will set a status conference to discuss the scheduling of a firm trial date in
this matter. During the status conference, the parties shall also be prepared to discuss (1)
Plaintiff’s request to postpone trial and the disposition of his Equitable Estoppel Motion
pending resolution of his anticipated A.R.S. § 13-4296 claim; and (2) Defendants’ request
for leave to file a supplemental response to Plaintiff’s Equitable Estoppel Motion and a
renewed summary judgment motion.
In Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Joint Motion to Reopen (Doc. 1198),
Defendants’ Response thereto (Doc. 1199), and Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. 1200), the parties
quibble over whether Plaintiff’s attorneys played a role in writing or advocating for A.R.S.
§ 13-4296. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement to the extent the Court
has read the contents of the Motion to Supplement, Response, and Reply; however, the
Court does not find any relevance to the parties’ dispute concerning Plaintiff’s attorneys’
alleged involvement in the passage of A.R.S. § 13-4296.
. . . .
. . . .
Case 4:15-cv-00152-RM Document 1204 Filed 12/18/25 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
IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Reopen (Doc. 1202) is granted.
The Clerk of Court is directed to reopen the above-captioned matter and to mark as pending
Documents 954, 956, 958, 967, 976, 1086, 1088, 1112, 1123, 1145, 1159, and 1169.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Joint Motion
to Reopen (Doc. 1198) is granted insofar as the Court has read the contents of the Motion
to Supplement, Response, and Reply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status conference in the above-captioned
matter is set for February 3, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Rosemary Márquez,
in Courtroom 5A of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Evo A.
DeConcini U.S. Courthouse, 405 W. Congress Street, Tucson, AZ 85701.
Dated this 18th day of December, 2025.
Case 4:15-cv-00152-RM Document 1204 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 3