Williams v. Tempe Police Department

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 26, 2024
• Docket: 23-2123
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 26 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY HUNTLEY WILLIAMS, No. 23-2123 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00693-SPL--ESW Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

TEMPE POLICE DEPARTMENT, named as law enforcement; TEMPE MARKETPLACE, named as Christopher Robert, security; STATE OF ARIZONA, named as Prosecutor; TIMOTHY M MORIARTY, named as Tempe Police,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 20, 2024**

Before: CANBY, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Timothy Huntley Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims connected to

Williams’s arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113,

1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because Williams’s

claims against the State of Arizona are barred by sovereign immunity, and

Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Tempe Marketplace or its

security guard were state actors or that defendant Moriarty lacked probable cause

to arrest him. See Pasadena Republican Club v. W. Just. Ctr., 985 F.3d 1161, 1167

(9th Cir. 2021) (setting forth tests used to evaluate whether a private actor has

engaged in state action for purposes of § 1983); Yousefian v. City of Glendale, 779

F.3d 1010, 1014 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining that the “absence of probable cause is

a necessary element of [a] § 1983 false arrest” claim); Pittman v. Oregon, Emp.

Dep’t, 509 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that states enjoy sovereign

immunity from § 1983 actions).

We reject as unsupported by the record Williams’s contentions that the

district court was biased against him.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-2123