Tramposch di Genova v. Conover 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
Trista Tramposch di Genova,
Plaintiff,
v.
Laura Conover, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00597-TUC-JCH
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Trista Tramposch di Genova has filed a Complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 1985, and state law (“Complaint”) (Doc. 1) and an Application to
Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Motion”) (Doc. 2). After
thorough consideration, the Court will grant the Motion and dismiss the Complaint with
prejudice.
I. Application to Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Costs
The Motion indicates Plaintiff has insufficient funds to pay the filing fee. Good
cause appearing, the Court will grant the Motion.
II. Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), in a case in which a plaintiff has been granted in
forma pauperis status, the Court shall dismiss the case “if the court determines that . . .
(B) the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.”
Case 4:25-cv-00597-JCH Document 5 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 7

- 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
An in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated
claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Cato v.
United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019,
1021 (5th Cir. 1988). An in forma pauperis complaint repeating the same factual allegations
asserted in an earlier case, even if now filed against a new defendant, is subject to dismissal
as duplicative and frivolous. See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021.
To determine whether two successive causes of action are the same, courts use the
“transaction test” developed in the context of claim preclusion. Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of
Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that “[a] suit is duplicative if the
claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions”),
abrogated on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). The transaction
test examines “(1) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be
destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2) whether substantially the
same evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether the two suits involve
infringement of the same right; and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same
transactional nucleus of facts.” Id. (quoting Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d
1199, 1201–02 (9th Cir. 1982). “The last of these criteria is the most important.” Id.
In Adams, the district court denied a plaintiff’s untimely motion for leave to amend
her complaint, and the plaintiff subsequently filed a separate action setting forth the
additional claims against the new defendants she had sought to add in her denied motion.
487 F.3d at 687. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint
with prejudice, reasoning in part that the same evidence would have been used to support
the claims in both complaints, and the complaints differed only in the addition of new
parties and legal theories. Id. at 689–90. The court found that the central issue in both
cases—the legality of the defendants’ conduct—had already been addressed, and the
plaintiff had already had a “full and fair opportunity to raise and litigate in her first action”
the claims she attempted to assert in her second action. Id. at 691, 693. The Plaintiff was
also seeking substantially the same relief in both cases. Id. at 691. Accordingly, the
Case 4:25-cv-00597-JCH Document 5 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 7

- 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
plaintiff’s second action was dismissed as duplicative. Id.
III. Analysis
Plaintiff sues Pima County Attorney Laura Conover, several assistant county
attorneys, and Pima County for malicious prosecution, defamation, conspiracy to deprive
civil rights, First Amendment retaliation, and a Monell violation. See Doc. 1. Plaintiff
alleges that, after her service dog was unlawfully euthanized, members of the Pima County
Sheriff’s Department (PCSD) used the veterinarian’s statements as the foundation for a
search warrant that they executed with “ a 60-man armed raid on Plaintiff’s home, seizing
nearly 200 healthy animals, many of which later died in county custody.” Doc. 1 at 2.
According to Plaintiff, following this raid, the Pima County Attorney’s Office (PCAO)
unjustly prosecuted Plaintiff for animal cruelty “despite overwhelming evidence of police
fabrication, false timelines, staged photographs, and constitutional violations.” Id. Plaintiff
further alleges that the named assistant county attorneys “supported an involuntary-
commitment petition” initiated by PCSD Detectives Teddy Noon and Edgar Nosek and
based in part on “Plaintiff’s political speech and campaign statements.” Id.
Plaintiff has brought four other suits against various Defendant’s based on these
same events. In 2023, Plaintiff brought two suits against several law enforcement officers,
including Detectives Noon and Nosek, alleging various constitutional violations. See
Tramposch v. Nosek et al., 4:23-CV-00524, Docs. 1, 6, & 8; Tramposch v. Noon et al.,
4:23-CV-00525, Docs. 1, 6, & 8. In one case, Plaintiff alleged that PCSD employees
improperly obtained a search warrant for her property after her service dog was taken to
the veterinarian, and she was unjustly arrested as a result. See, e.g., 4:23-CV-00525, Doc. 8
at 3. In the other, Plaintiff focused on how PCSD officers had her involuntarily committed
in retaliation for filing complaints about the officers’ conduct while executing the search
warrant, justifying her commitment because Plaintiff had “delusions of being a good
presidential candidate.”1 See e.g., 4:23-CV-00524, Doc. 1 at 4, Doc. 6 at 5. In Plaintiff’s
1 Plaintiff’s second amended complaints in both cases were broader, and she provided the
Court will a 20-page “summary” of the events underlying each action. See generally 4:23-
CV-00524 at Doc. 8-1; 4:23-CV-00525 at Doc. 8-1. These versions of her complaints
described the veterinarian visit, the allegedly improper search warrant, the “raid” of her
Case 4:25-cv-00597-JCH Document 5 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 7

- 4 -
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
first case, the Court attempted to give her four chances to state a claim but directed the
Clerk of Court to close the case after Plaintiff failed to file a third amended complaint as
directed. See 4:23-CV-00524, Docs. 9, 10. In Plaintiff’s second case, the Court gave her
three chances to state a claim and dismissed her second amended complaint with prejudice
when she failed to meet the pleading standard. See 4:23-CV-00525, Doc. 9.
Earlier this year, Plaintiff filed two more cases against several of the same
defendants from her 2023 cases, along with additional defendants. See Tramposch v. Pima
Animal Care Center, et al., 4:25-CV-00572; Tramposch v. Noon et al., 4:25-CV-00573.
As before, Plaintiff alleged law enforcement officers had “conspired to fabricate and
execute a false investigation and unlawful seizure of Plaintiff’s animals,” used excessive
force in executing the warrant, and conspired to have her involuntarily committed in
retaliation for her complaints of misconduct. See 4:25-CV-00572, Doc. 1; 4:25-CV-00573,
Doc. 1. On November 18, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint in 4:25-CV-00572
and found it shared a common nucleus of fact with and would have involved the same
evidence as 4:23-CV-00525 had the case survived screening. See 4:25-CV-00572, Doc. 5
at 3. Accordingly, the Court dismissed 4:25-CV-00572 as duplicative.2 See id.
The Court will also dismiss this Complaint as duplicative of 4:23-CV-00524, 4:23-
CV-00525, 4:25-CV-00572, and 4:25-CV-00573. Like in Adams, Plaintiff’s cases all arise
from a common nucleus of fact, and the acts Plaintiff complains of here are identical to
those alleged in her previous cases. See, e.g., 4:23-CV-00524, Doc. 8-1 at 8–12; 4:23-CV-
00525, Doc. 8-1 at 2–3, 9; 4:25-CV-00572, Doc. 1 at 2–3 (discussing the “60-man armed
raid” and alleging Plaintiff’s criminal charges were based on false evidence and police
misconduct; 4:23-CV-00524, Doc. 8-1 at 6, 15–16, 19; 4:23-CV-00525, Doc. 8-1 at 14–15
(discussing Plaintiff’s involuntary-commitment petition and alleging it was retaliatory and
motivated by her political campaign).3 Plaintiff has previously tried to bring malicious
home and seizure of her animals, and her resulting arrest and involuntary commitment. See
id.
2 The Court has not yet screened the complaint in 4:25-CV-00573, but its factual allegations
are nearly identical to the complaint in 4:25-CV-00572, and it will likely be similarly fated.
3 Plaintiff has also previously accused the PCAO of misconduct, though this is the first
time she has sued PCAO employees. See 4:23-CV-00524, Doc. 8-1 at 15, 16; 4:23-CV-
Case 4:25-cv-00597-JCH Document 5 Filed 11/21/25 Page 4 of 7

- 5 -
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
prosecution, defamation, “conspiracy to violate constitutional rights,” supervisory liability,
and First Amendment retaliation claims against various defendants in her prior actions. See
4:23-CV-00524, Doc. 1 at 3, Doc. 6 at 5, Doc. 8 at 3; 4:23-CV-00525, Doc. 1 at 1, Doc. 6
at 7, 9, Doc. 8-1 at 1; 4:25-CV-00572, Doc. 1 at 3; 4:25-CV-00573, Doc. 1 at 3. Here,
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, a declaration that “Defendants’ actions
violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights,” “disciplinary referral of Defendants to the
Arizona State Bar and Department of Justice Civil Rights Division,” and “injunctive relief
prohibiting further retaliatory actions and ensuring return of Plaintiff’s remaining animals.”
Doc. 1 at 3. Plaintiff has previously requested compensatory and punitive damages and
repeatedly asked the Court to order the return of her animals. See 4:23-CV-00524, Doc. 8-1
at 20; 4:23-CV-00525, Doc. 8-1 at 4; 4:25-CV-00572, Doc. 1 at 4; 4:25-CV-00573, Doc. 1
at 4.
Plaintiff’s many complaints make clear she is upset that her animals were
confiscated, feels the resulting criminal charges and proceedings against her were unjust,
and wants someone held accountable. The Court has given Plaintiff the opportunity to bring
her case, and she has failed six times to state a claim arising from the facts alleged here.
Plaintiff has already had a “full and fair opportunity to raise and litigate” her claims, and
she cannot circumvent the judicial process by filing the same case against different
defendants. Accordingly, this Complaint is duplicative.4
///
///
00525, Doc. 8-1 at 2–3, 9.
4 The Court would dismiss the Complaint even if it were not duplicative. Here, Plaintiff
attempts to sue county attorneys for charging decisions and conduct during the judicial
process. See Doc. 1 at 2–3. These claims fail because prosecutors have absolute immunity
from civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts “within the scope of [their] duties in
initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution.” See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409,
409 (1976); see also Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 489–90 (1991) (“Prosecutors and other
lawyers were absolutely immune from damages liability at common law for making false
or defamatory statements in judicial proceedings (at least so long as the statements were
related to the proceeding) . . . .”). Plaintiff’s Monell claim against Pima County also fails
because she has not alleged a pattern or practice of similar constitutional violations. See
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 62 (2011) (“A pattern of similar constitutional
violations by untrained employees is ‘ordinarily necessary’ to demonstrate deliberate
indifference for purposes of failure to train.”).
Case 4:25-cv-00597-JCH Document 5 Filed 11/21/25 Page 5 of 7

- 6 -
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
IV. Warning
The right to access the courts is a cornerstone of the legal system, and individuals
must be allowed a fair opportunity to present legitimate claims, regardless of how often
they litigate. In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 446 (3d Cir. 1982). Additionally, the in forma
pauperis statute was designed to ensure indigent individuals have equal access to the
federal courts. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915). However, this access is not without limits:
regardless of financial status, no one has the right to misuse or exploit the judicial system.
Id.
A district court is empowered to enjoin litigants who have abusive histories of
litigation or who file frivolous lawsuits from continuing to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
“A District Court not only may, but should, protect its ability to carry out its constitutional
functions against the threat of onerous, multiplicitous, and baseless litigation.” Safir v.
United States Lines, Inc.,729 F.2d 19, 24 (2nd Cir. 1986). Federal courts possess the
inherent power “to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored
restrictions under the appropriate circumstances,” such as enjoining litigants from filing
new actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Delong v. Hennesey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147
(9th Cir. 1990). Such restrictions are appropriate to further important judicial interests
such as preserving the finality of judgments, protecting defendants from unwarranted
harassment, or maintaining order on the Court's docket. See Oliver, 682 F.2d at 445 (3d Cir.
1982), (citing Clinton v. United States, 297 F.2d 899, 901 (9th Cir. 1961)). Before imposing
such an order, the Court must (1) give the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard;
(2) compile an adequate record; (3) make substantive findings of frivolousness or
harassment; and (4) narrowly tailor the order to the specific conduct at issue. Ringgold-
Lockhart v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014).
Plaintiff has filed five cases with this Court this year and seven cases total.5 Four of
5 Tramposch di Genova v. Nosek et al., 4:23-CV-00524 (Dec. 13, 2024) (closing case after
Plaintiff failed to file a third amended complaint); Tramposch v. Noon et al., 4:23-CV-
00525 (Nov. 22, 2024) (dismissing second amended complaint with prejudice); Tramposch
v. Pima Animal Care Center et al., 4:25-CV-00572 (Nov. 18, 2025) (dismissing case as
duplicative); Tramposch v. Noon et al., 4:25-CV-00573 (screening order forthcoming);
Tramposch di Genova v. Conover et al., 4:25-CV-00597 (instant case); Tramposch di
Case 4:25-cv-00597-JCH Document 5 Filed 11/21/25 Page 6 of 7

- 7 -
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
Plaintiff’s 2025 cases have related to the same events underlying her two 2023 cases. Both
of Plaintiff’s 2023 cases failed to make it past screening, and two, now, of Plaintiff’s 2025
cases have been dismissed as duplicative.6 Plaintiff’s two remaining complaints pending
before the Court also appear meritless.
Plaintiff’s numerous complaints, particularly those involving claims she has already
had the opportunity to litigate, have been frivolous and a drain on judicial resources. The
Court strongly cautions Plaintiff to familiarize herself with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and consider the merits of her case and whether she can successfully state a
claim before filing any additional cases. If Plaintiff continues to file frivolous,
duplicative lawsuits, the Court may place restrictions on Plaintiff’s ability to file in
the District of Arizona.
V. Order
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice the Complaint as
duplicative of Tramposch di Genova v. Nosek et al., 4:23-CV-00524; Tramposch v. Noon
et al., 4:23-CV-00525; Tramposch v. Pima Animal Care Center et al., 4:25-CV-00572; and
Tramposch v. Noon et al., 4:25-CV-00573. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment
accordingly.
Dated this 20th day of November, 2025.
Genova v. Russo et al., 25-CV-598 (screening order forthcoming); Tramposch di Genova
v. Trump et al., 4:25-CV-00599 (Nov. 5, 2025) (dismissing complaint for failure to state
a claim and granting leave to amend).
6 The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s unrelated complaint in 4:25-CV-00599 for failure to state
a claim. See 4:25-CV-00599, Doc. 5.
Case 4:25-cv-00597-JCH Document 5 Filed 11/21/25 Page 7 of 7