Armando Valles v. County of Pima

502 F. App'x 651

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 19, 2012
• Docket: 11-15794
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Valles et al. (“Lot Owners”) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the County of Pima (“the County”) on their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The Lot Owners raised four claims: promissory estoppel, substantive due process, Fifth Amendment taking, and negligence. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to the County on each of these claims. The Lot Owners cannot establish promissory estoppel because the. County made no promise to them which they could have reasonably relied upon. Chewning v. Palmer, 133 Ariz. 136, 650 P.2d 438, 440 (Ariz.1982). The County took no action which could support a substantive due process claim. See Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir.2008) (“ ‘failure-to-protect’ and ‘failure-to-enforce’ allegations do not suffice” as substantive due process claims). Similarly, the County took no regulatory action which could support a takings claim. See Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 130, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978) (evaluating when a particular government action constitutes a taking). Finally, the Lot Owners cannot prevail on their negligence claims, since the County and County officials are protected by Arizona’s qualified immunity statute. Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-820.02. The County has established that its employees were not grossly negligent. See Walls v. Ariz. Dep’t of Public Safety, 170 Ariz. 591, 826 P.2d 1217, 1221 (Ariz.Ct.App.1991).

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.