Dennis Ball v. City of Peoria

426 F. App'x 481
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 28, 2011
Docket09-17184
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 426 F. App'x 481 (Dennis Ball v. City of Peoria) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dennis Ball v. City of Peoria, 426 F. App'x 481 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Dennis Andrew Ball appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action against the City of Peoria and its police department. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Ball’s state law claims were barred by Arizona’s Public Entity Notice of Claim Statute because he failed to file a notice of claim containing “facts sufficient to permit the public entity or public employee to understand the basis upon which liability is claimed.” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-821.01(A); see also Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. *482 No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 152 P.3d 490, 492 (2007) (requiring strict compliance with the statutory requirements of § 12-821.01(A)).

Ball’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted on December 20, 2010.

AFFIRMED.

***

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Batman v. Perez
S.D. California, 2021
Ball v. City of Peoria
181 L. Ed. 2d 995 (Supreme Court, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
426 F. App'x 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-ball-v-city-of-peoria-ca9-2011.