Burris v. Pinal, County of

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
Kevinn Burris,
Plaintiff,
v.
County of Pinal, et al.,
Defendant.
No. CV-26-01316-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiff Kevinn Burris filed his original complaint on February 25, 2026. (Doc. 1.)
On March 30, 2026, he filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 8.) Later that day, defendant
Pinal County filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 9.) The motion to dismiss discussed the
original complaint, so the court denied it and ordered Pinal County to respond to the
amended complaint. (Doc. 10.) Apparently unaware the motion to dismiss had been denied,
Burris filed an opposition. Burris’s opposition also requested leave to amend. (Doc. 11.)
On April 6, 2026, the court denied Burris’s request to amend his complaint. In doing
so, the court reminded Burris that Local Rule 15.1 requires any motion to amend the
complaint be accompanied by “a copy of the proposed amended [complaint]” that
“indicate[s] in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing or
striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text to be added.” (Doc. 12 at 1-
2.) The court also noted Burris appeared to be using artificial intelligence to draft his
filings. The court reminded Burris that he needed to comply with its requirements for
litigants using artificial intelligence. (Doc. 12.)
Case 2:26-cv-01316-KML Document 17 Filed 05/07/26 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
Pinal County filed a motion to dismiss discussing the amended complaint, Burris
filed an opposition, and Pinal County filed its reply. (Docs. 13-15.) Without first obtaining
permission from the court, Burris filed a sur-reply allegedly to address new arguments
raised in the reply. (Doc. 16.) According to the sur-reply, Burris “does not oppose dismissal
of Pinal County as a defendant . . . but maintains that the underlying constitutional
violations remain actionable against proper parties.” (Doc. 16 at 2.) The sur-reply contains
a request for leave to amend the complaint but, as with his prior request to amend—and
despite now having been explicitly warned about the court’s rules—Burris again failed to
include a proposed amended complaint.
Burris no longer opposes the dismissal of his claims against Pinal County, so the
motion to dismiss is granted as unopposed. Burris argues the case should not be dismissed
because he will be able to amend his complaint to identify new defendants. Burris is granted
leave to amend but before doing so, he should carefully consider whether the doctrine of
judicial immunity will preclude his planned claims.
Judicial immunity bars claims against judges and the related doctrine of “quasi-
judicial immunity” bars claims against “others who perform functions closely associated
with the judicial process.” In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 952 (9th Cir. 2002) (simplified).
Court employees such as clerks “have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for
civil rights violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial
process.” Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir.
1987). For example, in Mullis, a clerk who refused to accept for filing a bankruptcy petition
was entitled to immunity. Id. Similarly, a clerk who failed to provide a litigant notice of a
hearing was entitled to immunity. In re Castillo, 297 F.3d at 952. To the extent Burris is
attempting to sue individual judicial employees for not properly processing court rulings
or filings, such claims are very likely barred by quasi-judicial immunity.
Finally, Burris continues to fail to comply with the applicable rules and court
procedures. The court previously informed Burris that if he sought leave to amend, he must
include a proposed amended complaint. Despite that, Burris’s latest motion to amend did
Case 2:26-cv-01316-KML Document 17 Filed 05/07/26 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
not include a proposed amended complaint. In the future, Burris must comply with that
local rule. Also, if he chooses to file an amended complaint Burris must file a version that
“indicate[s] in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing or
striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text to be added.” (Doc. 12 at 1-
2.) Future filings that fail to comply with the court’s rules and orders, including this order,
may be summarily stricken and result in sanctions up to and including dismissal of the
action with no additional warning.
Burris also filed an improper sur-reply and apparently continues to ignore the
court’s requirements regarding the use of AI given that his filings often confusingly
contradict each other. Filing a sur-reply is not permitted without first obtaining permission
from the court, and such permission is rarely granted. If Burris uses AI to prepare a filing,
including any amended complaint, Burris must file a declaration that identifies which
portions of the filing incorporate AI outputs. (Doc. 6 at 3.) Again, if Burris fails to comply
with the court’s procedures, future filings may be summarily stricken with no additional
warning.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. The current
complaint naming as defendant only defendant Pinal County is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Amend (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. No
later than May 21, 2026, plaintiff shall file his amended complaint. The Clerk of Court is
directed to enter a judgment of dismissal if no amended complaint is filed by that date.
Dated this 7th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-01316-KML Document 17 Filed 05/07/26 Page 3 of 3