Accomplished Trial Attorney
Founding partner Daniel Struck is an accomplished trial attorney who focuses his practice on civil rights litigation, including defense of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens actions, corrections defense, government and municipal liability, class action and complex multi-party litigation defense, and insurance defense. Dan is respected throughout Arizona and across the nation for his ability to vigorously defend government entities, government partners, corporations, and individual defendants in complicated and highly sensitive legal matters.
Dan has litigated over one thousand cases in state and federal courts. His trial experience includes complex class actions, wrongful death, catastrophic injury, and inmate sexual assault and excessive force cases. He has defended corrections and law enforcement personnel in deadly and excessive force, police shootings, false arrest, employment discrimination, and other civil rights claims. As national counsel for a leading correctional provider, Dan has handled cases in 21 states and the District of Columbia. In his insurance defense practice he defends businesses and individuals against tort claims, advises carriers on coverage issues, and defends bad faith litigation.
Accolades and Achievements
Known for establishing longstanding relationships with his clients, Dan understands the difficult legal issues before them. From case inception through trial and appeal, Dan works with his clients to craft individualized strategies. He is an aggressive advocate who knows what it takes to achieve successful results in the most challenging cases, including class action and high-exposure matters.
Dan’s achievements include obtaining one of the top ten civil defense verdicts in the State of Arizona in Wilson v. Maricopa County, a wrongful death case arising out of a brutal murder in Sheriff Joseph Arpaio’s “Tent City.” In Lewis v. Casey, he also successfully defended the Arizona Department of Corrections before the Supreme Court of the United States. That landmark decision led to sweeping changes in the requirements governing inmate access to the courts.
In recognition of his accomplishments, professionalism, and legal skills, Dan has received numerous distinctions and honors, including being named an Arizona Super Lawyer by Southwest Super Lawyers Magazine and achieving AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rating by Martindale-Hubbell.
Presentations and Publications:
- Instructor, North American Association of Wardens & Superintendents (NAAWS) Training Conference, “Legal Liability and Evidence Preservation” and “When the ACLU Comes Knocking,” 2018
- Dan co-authored “Managing the Risk of Unmanned Air Vehicles,” which was featured as a cover story in the January, 2018 issue of Public Risk, a monthly magazine published by the Public Risk Management Association. The article explores the constitutional implications of unmanned air vehicles, or “drones,” under the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizure, and analyzes the current legal landscape and enacted state legislation regarding government-owned drones, and the potential liabilities and risk associated with their ownership and use in light of future technological advances.
- Presenter, Firm Client Seminar, “Save $$$ Early On: A Roadmap to Success,” 2016
- Presenter, Arizona PRIMA Chapter Meeting, “Know When to Hold ‘Em and When to Fold ‘Em,” Peoria, Arizona, February 25, 2016
- Presenter, DRI 28th Annual Civil Rights and Governmental Tort Liability Seminar, “Developing a § 1983 Case,” San Diego, California, January 29-30, 2015
- Presenter, Sixteenth Annual Public Practice Legal Seminar, Prescott, Arizona, May 9, 2013
- Instructor, National College of District Attorneys, 2002, 2004, 2007
- Presenter, Pro Se Law Clerk Conference, 2001
- Presenter, National Association of Attorneys General Conference, 1995-1996
- Adjunct Faculty, Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, 1989-1990
- Rico v. Corrections Corporation of America, et al., Pinal County Superior Court, No. CV2014-01024 (Nov. 17, 2016) – Obtained a defense verdict for two physicians accused of malpractice in a wrongful death case.
- Parsons v. Ryan, CV 12-00601-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz. 2013) – Defended Arizona Department of Corrections in class action alleging systemic deficiencies in conditions of maximum custody confinement and provision of medical, dental, and mental health care.
- Schilling v. TransCor, C 08-941 SI, 2012 WL 3257659 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012) – Obtained summary judgment in class action arising out of conditions of confinement on inmate transports.
- Woods v. Myers, 07-cv-01078-DMS-PCL (S.D. Cal. 2010) – Successfully defended Corrections Corporation of America in class action regarding provision of medical care to immigration detainees.
- Kiniti v. Myers, 05-cv-1013-DMS-PCL (S.D. Cal. 2008) – Successfully defended Corrections Corporation of America in class action regarding alleged overcrowding conditions of confinement in detention facility.
- Wilson v. Maricopa County, CV 04-02873-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. 2007) – Obtained defense verdict in case involving brutal murder in Tent City. Recognized as one of the most significant defense verdicts of 2007 by Arizona Attorney Magazine.
- Allred v. Corrections Corporation of America,CV-03-2343-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. 2006) – Obtained defense verdict in case involving female inmate alleging she was sexually assaulted by male inmates.
- Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004) – Defended Maricopa County in case involving utilization of 24-hour web-based cameras in Maricopa County Jail.
- Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 1999) (En Banc) –Ninth Circuit en banc panel upheld restrictive policy relating to pornographic materials in Maricopa County jails.
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (Counsel of Record) – Defended Arizona Department of Corrections in landmark case that resulted in sweeping changes to prison administrators’ obligations with respect to inmate legal access.
- Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516 (9th Cir. 1993) – Defended Arizona Department of Corrections in class action challenging prison policies against contact visitation with attorneys.