Jones v. Cohen

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

SCOTT ANDREW JONES, II, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

BRUCE R. COHEN, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0150

FILED 09-25-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2024-019314
The Honorable Joseph C. Welty, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Scott Andrew Jones II, Kingman
Plaintiff/Appellant

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Jennifer Rethemeier, Eleni C. Lugo, Connie Gould
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
 JONES v. COHEN
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Anni Hill Foster and Judge Veronika Fabian joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Scott Andrew Jones, II appeals from the superior court's
dismissal of his civil complaint against the Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, the
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who presided over Jones's pending
criminal cases. Jones has failed to comply with ARCAP 13 in his opening
brief and therefore has waived any issues he attempts to present for review.
We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 While a criminal defendant in two matters, Jones filed a civil
complaint against Judge Cohen. He alleged that: (1) he handed Judge
Cohen a document which established a trust and imposed duties on Judge
Cohen; (2) Judge Cohen had been unjustly enriched as a result; and (3)
appropriate relief would constitute specific performance and declaratory
judgment.

¶3 Judge Cohen moved to dismiss, asserting judicial immunity
and arguing the complaint failed to state a claim. Judge Cohen further
argued that the complaint was an impermissible horizontal appeal to the
extent it sought to compel specific actions in Jones's criminal matters.

¶4 The superior court granted dismissal with prejudice, finding
that: (1) Jones failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (2)
Judge Cohen was entitled to judicial immunity because the complaint arose
from acts related to his exercise of judicial functions; and (3) the complaint's
requested relief—seeking a specific outcome in Jones's criminal matters—
constituted an improper horizontal appeal.

¶5 Jones timely appealed and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S.
§ 12-2101(A)(1).

2
 JONES v. COHEN
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶6 A "party aggrieved by a judgment may appeal as provided
under Arizona law and ARCAP." Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, 522, ¶ 8
(App. 2022) (citation omitted). "An appellant who fails to make a 'bona fide
and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules' will waive issues
and arguments 'not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the
record, or authority.'" Id. (quoting In re Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. 62, 64–65, ¶ 6
(2013)). "Courts hold unrepresented litigants in Arizona to the same
standards as attorneys and do not afford them special leniency." Id. (citing
Flynn v. Campbell, 243 Ariz. 76, 83–84, ¶ 24 (2017)).

¶7 To the extent we understand his argument, Jones asserts that
the superior court erred in dismissing his complaint. However, his opening
brief does not comply with ARCAP 13(a). "Opening briefs must present
and address significant arguments, supported by authority that set forth
the appellant's position on the issue in question." Ritchie v. Krasner, 221
Ariz. 288, 305, ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (citing Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist.
No. 97, 186 Ariz. 161, 167 (App. 1996)). The brief must include an argument
containing the appellant's contentions about the issues presented, along
with supporting reasons and citations to the authorities, statutes, and
portions of the record on which he relies. ARCAP 13(a)(7).

¶8 Jones's brief contains none of these. He has therefore waived
any issues he intended to submit for our review. See Ramos, 252 Ariz. at
522, ¶ 9 (applying waiver to all issues appellant "may have wished to
submit for this court's review" based on appellant's failure to make a "bona
fide and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with [ARCAP] 13").

CONCLUSION

¶9 We affirm.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

3